Fauconier v. Clarke et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 12/31/2014. (rban, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
Douglas Fauconier,
Plaintiff,
I:14cvl692 (TSE/JFA)
V.
Harold W. Clarke, et al..
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Douglas Fauconier, a Virginia inmate proceedingfiro se, has filed a civil rights action,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his rights under both the Constitution and the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") were violated when he was removed from his position
as a houseman at Powhatan Correctional Center ("PCC"). Plaintiff has applied to proceed in
forma pauperis in this action, and has moved for the appointment of counsel. After careful review
of plaintiffs complaint, the claims must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(I) for
failure to state a claim.' Plaintiffs motionsto proceed in forma pauperisand for appointmentof
Section 1915A provides:
(a) Screening.—^The court shall review,beforedocketing,iffeasibleor, in any event,
as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.
(b)Grounds for dismissal.—On review, thecourt shall identify cognizable claims
or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to statea claim uponwhich relief
can be granted; or
(2)seeks monetary relieffrom a defendant whoisimmune from such
relief
1
counsel accordingly will be denied, as moot.
1.
Plaintiff alleges that he has always been employed in a variety ofjobs during his
incarceration by the Virginia Department of Corrections. At PCC, he worked in the cafeteria and
as a houseman performing janitorial duties. On or about October 14,2010, plaintiff was
admitted to the Medical College of Virginia ("MCV") for an unspecified ailment. After a "very
brief hospital stay, plaintiff returned to PCC and was placed in a different housing unit, which
"effectively remov[ed]" him from his houseman position. Compl. at 2. When bed space became
available plaintiff was returned to his original housing unit and was required to re-apply for a
houseman position. However, he was not re-hired due to his medical status. Compl. at 3.
Plaintiff states that from 2010 until the present, he "has been continually disapproved for all jobs
for which he applied, and he has been automatically disqualified from seeking any employment
as a prisoner imprisoned in DOC due to his medical classification." Id.
Plaintiff includes exhibits to the complaint consisting of various grievances he filed
regarding his work status. In response to one such grievance. Officer L. Black stated:
Your medical work code is "D." Medical work code "D" means no
work, making you ineligible for alljobs. Your medical work code is
set by the doctor. Please consult the doctor about the reasoning
behind this classification. Action was in accordance with OP 841.3
Compl., Ex. 1.
Plaintiffalleges here that his exclusion from prison work programs violates his rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Title II of the ADA. The named defendants are
Harold W. Clarke, Directorof the VirginiaDepartment of Corrections; Jeffeiy N. Dillman,
Warden of PCC; Luke Isaiah Black, PCC's institutional programs manager; and Lakenesha
Spencer, PCC's programs assignment reviewer. As relief, plaintiff seeks an award of
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratoryand injunctive relief requiring
defendants to "end their discrimination" against him. Compl. at 5.
11.
In reviewing a complaint pursuant to § 1915A,a court must dismiss a prisoner complaint
that is fnvolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(l). Whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted is
determined by "the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)."
Sumner v. Tucker. 9 F. Supp. 2d 641,642 (E.D. Va. 1998); Hishon v. King & Spalding. 467 U.S.
69,73 (1984), To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, acceptedas true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroftv. Iqbal.
556 U.S. —, —, 129 S. Ct. 1937,1949 (2009) fquotinp Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv. 550
U.S. 544,570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Id However, "[t]hreadbare recitalsof the elementsof a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to meetthis standard, id, and a
plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to reliefabove the speculative
level...". Twomblv. 550 U.S. at 55. Moreover, a court "is not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Igbal, 129S. Ct. at 1949-1950. Courts mayalso
consider exhibits attachedto the complaint. United States ex rel. Constructors. Inc. v. Gulf Ins.
Co„ 313 F. Supp. 2d 593,596 (E.D. Va. 2004) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practiceand Procedure § 1357, at 299 (2d edl990), cited with approval in
Anheuser-Busch v. Schmoke. 63 F.3d 1305,1312 (4th Cir.1995)). Where a conflict exists
between "the bare allegations of the complaint and any attached exhibit, the exhibit prevails."
Gulf Ins. Co.. 313 F. Supp. 2d. at 596 (citing FavettevilleInvestors v. Commercial Builders. Inc..
936 F.2d 1462,1465 (4th Cir.1991)).
III.
To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he was
deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this
deprivation resulted from conductcommitted by a person acting imdercolor of state law. See
West V. Atkins. 487 U.S. 42 (1988). Here, even liberal construction of plaintiff's allegations
fails to reveal a redressable § 1983 claim, because plaintiff has no federally-guaranteed right to
the entitlement he asserts.
Prisoners have no constitutional right to job opportunities while incarcerated. Gibson v.
McEvers. 631 F.2d 95, 98 (7th Cir. 1980); Await v. Whalen. 809 F. Supp. 414,416-17 (E.D. Va.
1992) (prisonersdo not have a constitutionally-protected right to work while incarcerated, or to
remain in a particularjob once assigned). A prisonerhas no constitutionally-protected liberty
interest in any particularjob assigimient or work detail. Johnson v. Knable. 862 F.2d 314, 1988
WL 119136, **1 (4th Cir. 1988) (table) ("[P]rison workassignments are matterswithin the
discretion of prison officials, and denial of employment does not, in and of itself, abridge any
constitutional right of the inmate."); QHm. 461 U.S. at 250. "[T]he classifications and work
assignments of prisoners ... arematters of prison administration, within thediscretion of the
prison administrators,..." Altizer v. Paderick. 569 F.2d 812, 813 (4th Cir.), cert, denied. 435 U.S.
1009(1978); accord. Mitchell v. Murray. 856 F. Supp. 289,293 (E.D. Va. 1994).
Moreover, prisoners have no due process right to participate in vocational or educational
programs. Women Prisoners ofDist. ofColumbia Deo't ofCorr. v. Dist. of Columbia. 93 F.3d
910,927 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (inmates do not have aconstitutional right to work or educational
opportunities). Therefore, the fact that plaintiff is no longer permitted to work in institutional job
placements states no claim ofconstitutional dimension.
Plaintiff's reliance on the ADA fares no better. In Chase v, Baskerville, 508 F.Supp.2d
492 (E.D. Va. 2007) (Hudson, J.), afiM, 305 Fed. App'x 135 (4th Cir. Dec. 31,2008), this court
recognized that "in the context of state prisons, Title 11 vaiidly abrogates state sovereign
immunity and 'creates aprivate cause ofaction for damages against the States* only for conduct
that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment."' Id. at 506, citing United States v. Georgia,
546 U.S. 151, 159 (2006) (emphasis original). Accordingly, adeaf prisoner's demand for
damages under Title II of the ADA for his failure to receive the services ofan interpreter was
dismissed. 14 Here, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs removal from his prison work
assignment does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, so his claim under Title II ofthe ADA
likewise must be dismissed.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's claims for reliefunder §1983 and the ADA must be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §l9l5A(b)(l) for failure to state aclaim. An appropriate Order
shall issue.
Entered this
3f-
Alexandria, Virginia
day of
2014.
T. S. Ellis, III
United States Dia riot Judge.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?