Cain v. Martinez et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION in re 1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 08/03/2015. (c/s to Plaintiff)(jlan)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

Antonio Cain,
Plaintiff,

I:15cv968 (TSE/IDD)

V.

Cpl. Martinez, et al.^
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Antonio Cain, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action,

pursuantto 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking monetary damages for events that befellhim at Riverside
Regional Jail ("RRJ"). Plaintiff has applied to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. For the
following reasons, the complamt must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for
failure to state a claim,"
1.

Plaintiffalleges that on Jime 15,2015, Corporal Martinez made a "very disrespectful"

Section 1915A provides:

(a)Screening.—Thecourtshallreview, before docketing, if feasible or,in anyevent,
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, the court 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 upon which relief
can be granted; or

(2)seeks monetary relieffrom a defendant who is immune from such
relief
1

and "very offensive" racially pejorative statement to plaintiff, and then laughed. Plaintiff stated
that he was offended by the comment, and Martinez responded that he didn't care, Compl. at 5.

Plaintiff felt "very disrespected" and "couldn't believe such a racial comment could some from a
corrections officer." Id. Plaintiff has attempted to resolve the situation through the grievance

process, but RRJ officials tell him that "this situation is not as serious as it is," and plaintiff has
been left feeling "truly offended, insulted and bothered." Id.
Attached to the complaint are several exhibits. The first is a chronicle ofplaintiffs efforts
to grieve the incident. It states that Corporal Martinez made the offensive remark on June 15,
2015, and plaintiff submitted a grievance the following day. The grievance was answered on
June 30 but the response was "very unacceptable." Also on June 30, plaintiff was "becoming a

little uncomfortable due to CO's acting a little different and looking for any reason to charge

[him] with something." Plaintiff appealed the denial of his grievance but the appeal concluded
on July 10 wath "no resolution," and it thereafter took him six days to obtain a standardized
§1983 complaint form. Plaintiffs second exhibit is a copy ofa letter he sent to Sgt. Ronney

expressing his offense at what Sgt. Martinez said as well as the mannerin which Sgt. Martinez
responded to his grievance. The third exhibit is a letterfrom Nicholas Valdes, another inmateat
RRJ who overheard the exchange between plaintiff and Cpl. Martinez and recoimts the event as

plaintiffdescribes it. Lastly, plaintiffmcludes copiesof his initial grievance and subsequent
appeal. In response to the grievance. Corporal Martinez wrote, "I assure you that I had no
intentionof insulting you in any manner. If you felt disrespected or offended by what I had
mentioned it was completely in error and not intended to be offensive toward you." When

plaintiffappealed that result, theresponding staffmember wrote, "Mr. Cain this issue will be
addressed internally in accordance with Riverside Regional Jail policy."

The named defendants in this action pursuant to § 1983 are Corporal Martinez, Officer
Rideout, Sgt. Whorley, Sgt. Ronney, and the Riverside Regional Jail. As relief, plaintiff seeks an

unspecified amount of monetary damages.
II.

In reviewing a complaint pursuant to § 1915A, a court must dismiss a prisoner complaint
that is frivolous, 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. Kins & Spaldine. 467 U.S.
69, 73 (1984). To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. labal.
556 U.S. —, —, 129 S. Ct. 1937,1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv. 550

U.S. 544,570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiffpleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconductalleged." Id However, "[t]hreadbare recitalsof the elementsof a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to meet this standard,id., and a

plaintiffs "[fjactual allegations mustbe 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." Iqbal. 129 S. Ct. at 1949-1950.

Courts may also considerexhibits attachedto the complaint. United States ex rel.
Constructors. Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co.. 313 F. Supp. 2d 593,596 (E.D. Va. 2004). Where a conflict

exists between "the bare allegations of the complaint and anyattached exhibit, the exhibit

prevails." Id. at 596 (citing Favetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders. Inc.. 936 F.2d 1462,

1465 (4th Cir. 1991)).
III.

In this case, taking plaintiffs as allegations as true and also considering his exhibits, he
states no claim for which relief can be granted. It is settled that, absent circumstances not alleged
here, verbal harassment and abuse do not rise to the level of a constitutional claim under §1983.
See Collins V. Cundv. 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979); Hudsoethv. Figgins. 584 F.2d 1345,

1348 (4th Cir. 1978). "[T]he use of vile and abusive language, no matter how abhorrent or

reprehensible, cannot form the basis of a §1983 claim." Keves v. Citv of Albanv. 594 F.Supp.
1147 (N.D.N.Y. 1984). Only when a verbal threat is combined with action apparently designed
to carry out the threat can it constitute a claim of constitutional dimension. Hudspeth. 584 F.2d at
1348. Here, plaintiff makes no suggestion that Corporal Martinez's racially pejorative statement

was coupled with any threat of harm to plaintiff. Therefore, as distasteful as Corporal Martinez's

language may have been, it cannotform the basis of a claim under §1983.
One other possible claim intimated by plaintiffs statements and exhibits will be
discussed in deference to his pro se status. It may be that plaintiff's reference in his first exhibit

to beginning to feel "a little uncomfortable due to CO's... and lookingfor any reason to charge

[him] with something" after he filed his grievance was intended to suggesta claim ofretaliation.
However, to state such a clann, an inmate must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the

alleged retaliatory act"was taken in response to theexercise of a constitutionally protected right
or that the act itself violated such a right." Adams v. Rice. 40 F.3d 72,75 (4th Cir. 1994).

Thereafter, plaintiffmustdemonstrate thathe suffered some adverse impact or actual injury.
ACLU of Md.. Inc. v. Wicomico Countv. Md.. 999 F.2d 780,785 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Huang

V. Bd. of Governors of Univ. ofN.C.. 902 F.2d 1134,1140 (4th Cir, 1990)). Here, plaintiff's

allegation meets neither of these criteria, so no claim of retaliation will lie.
IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim

pursuant to § 1915A. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis accordingly must be
denied, as moot. An appropriate Order shall issue.

Entered this

2015.

Alexandria, Virginia
T.S. Ellis, III
United States