King v. Smith et al
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 12/16/14. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )
E
IN THE
UNITED
FOR THE
STATES
DISTRICT
EASTERN DISTRICT
B
I
g
COURT
DEC I7 2014
OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA
JOE EDMOND KING,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
V
DAN SMITH,
3:12CV12
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Joe
Edmond
King,
a
OPINION
Virginia
detainee
currently
in
the
custody of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental
Services
("DBHDS"),
proceeding
pro
se
filed this 42 U.S.C. § 19831 complaint.
Court
on
the
Motion
Sheriff Dan Smith,
Elbert
Cassady,
for
Summary
and
Deputy Eddie Hancock,
Barry
forma
pauperis,
The matter is before the
Judgment
Captain Darryl Smith,
Sgt.
in
Vipperman,
Deputy Jason Handy,
filed
by
Defendants
Lt. Keith Bocock,
Deputy
Bobby
Johnson,
Deputy Sara Thompson,
1 That statute provides, in pertinent part:
Every person who,
under color of
any statute
. . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person
within
the
jurisdiction
thereof
to
the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law ....
42
U.S.C.
§
1983
Sgt.
and
Steve
No. 50)
Turner
("Patrick
County
Jail
Defendants").2
(ECF
Despite the provision of Roseboro notice,3 King has not
responded.
For the reasons set forth below,
the Patrick County
Jail Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.
I.
KING'S
COMPLAINT
In his Particularized Complaint
the
following
allegations
with
("Complaint")/4 King makes
respect
to
the
remaining5
defendants:6
(1) . Mr.
the
2 The
Joe King, Plaintiff herein, an ex-felon
Commonwealth of Virginia, serving parole
Court
employs
the
spelling
in
in
of Defendants'
names
provided in the Motion for Summary Judgment.
3 Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).
4 Because King's original complaint failed to provide each
defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon
which his or her liability rested, by Memorandum Order entered
on April
24,
2012,
the
Court
directed
King
to
file
a
particularized complaint.
On May 9,
2012,
King
filed a
Particularized
Complaint
(ECF
No.
8) ,
however,
the
Particularized
Complaint
only
marginally
improved
the
deficiencies of the original complaint.
5 The Court previously dismissed Defendants
No. 44) , Stewart, Miller,
1
(ECF No.
6
49)
The
Sargent,
Taylor,
Baliles
(ECF
and Unknown Defendant
from the action.
Court
corrects
the
and
spelling,
and
capitalization,
spacing,
removes
punctuation,
emphasis
from
quotations from King's complaint.
The Court believes WSVP" in
King's submissions is short for "Sexually Violent Predator."
Because
King's
Complaint
contains
many
omissions
and
alterations,
alterations
for
or
ease
of
omissions
reference,
in
bold.
alterations appear in the Complaint.
the
All
Court
other
notes
all
added
admissions
and
Virginia,
et.
seq.
was
prosecuted pursuant
to
§ 37.2-900
of the Code as a SVP.
(2) . Mr. King was adjudicated to be a SVP pursuant
[to] § 37.2-900, by an order dated November 24,
2009.
Prior to being physically committed to the
"Department" he was considered for conditional
release as required by law.
(3). Pursuant
to
§
37.2-909 (A) :[7]
Placement
of
committed respondents:
".
. . any respondent
committed pursuant
to
this
Chapter
shall
be
placed in the custody of the Department for
control,
care,
and treatment ..."
(5) . On 11-24-2009, Mr. King was granted conditional
release by the Circuit Court for Patrick County
pursuant [to] the provisions of § 37.2-912 and
§ 37.2-913 of the Code.
(6) . On
7-9-2010
Ramona
Baliles,
Parole
Officer,
signed a Petition for an Emergency Custody Order
accusing Mr.
King of
".
.
. violating Sex
Offender Special Instructions F, L and U . . . ."
7 Section 37.2-909(A) of the Virginia Code provides:
Any respondent committed pursuant to this chapter
shall be placed in the custody of [DBHDS] for control,
care,
and
treatment
until
such
time
as
the
respondent's
mental
abnormality
or
personality
disorder has so changed that the respondent will not
present an undue risk to public safety.
[DBHDS] shall
provide such control, care, and treatment at a secure
facility operated by it or may contract with private
or public entities, in or outside of the Commonwealth,
or with other states to provide comparable control,
care,
or
treatment.
At
all
times,
respondents
committed for control, care, and treatment by [DBHDS]
pursuant to this chapter shall be kept in a secure
facility.
Respondents committed under this chapter
shall be segregated by sight and sound at all times
from prisoners
in the
custody of
a
correctional
facility.
The Commissioner may make treatment and
management decisions regarding committed respondents
in his custody without obtaining prior approval of or
review by the committing court.
Va.
Code Ann.
§ 37.2-909(A)
(West 2013).
She did not accuse that Mr. King violated any
criminal statute within the Code of Virginia.
(7). Pursuant
[to]
the
Emergency
Custody
Order
authorized
by
Magistrate
C.C.
(unknown)
in
Patrick County, Ramona Baliles commanded that Mr.
King [be arrested and],".... must remain in
custody pending
[a]
hearing in
[the]
Circuit
Court . . . ."
See EXHIBIT A (7-9-2010 Emerg.
Custody Order).
(8) . Ramona Baliles ordered that Mr. King be taken to
the Patrick County Jail [after his arrest] for
evaluation
by
a
person
designated
by
the
D.B.H.D.S.,
the "Department."
(9) . On the Custody Order petitioned for by Ramona
Baliles, the command was/is, ". . .to deliver
[Mr. King] into the custody of the Department of
Behavioral Health and Developmental Services at
the following location (fill in) . . ." for the
[Va.
Code Ann.
§ 37.2-913]
evaluation
. . .
."
The blank line on the form was filed in [by
Ramona Baliles]
instructing the Patrick County
Jail DEFENDANTS to keep Mr. King in their custody
[at the
jail]
pending
a
hearing
in
Court . . . , [instead of delivering
the
Circuit
[him] to the
"Department" or V.C.B.R. whose address is 4 901
Patrick Henry Hwy., Burkeville, VA].
10) . The Custody Order issued by the magistrate at
Ramona
Baliles's
request,
commanded
that
Mr.
King, ". . . shall be placed in the custody of
the Department ..." (as defined in § 37.2-900 definitions).
•
•
•
•
11) . As a result of the custody order requested by
Ramona Baliles, Mr. King, who violated no law and
committed
no
punitive
environment
Jail
crime,
was
arrested
of
the
and
taken
Patrick
into
County
....
(12). On 7-8-10 Mr. King was in fact placed in punitive
Restraints by the state police,
like a common
criminal,
and taken to
[the]
Patrick County
Jail, where custody of Mr. King was given to and
taken by
Mr. King
Captain Darryl Smith, who is known to
as the Chief Jailer (at PCJ)
and the
person in responsible charge of the jail, acting
for the Sheriff.
Captain Darrell Smith assigned
Mr. King to be held in general population with
dangerous convicted felons in violation of state
law § 37.2-909(A).
(14) . Mr. King was detained illegally in the punitive
environment of the Patrick County Jail in general
population violation of state law § 37-909(A)
from 7-9-2010
to
2-14-2011.
(15) . During
this
time
the
Commissioner
[of
the
Department] knew Mr. King was in his "custody"
and housed in the Patrick County Jail, illegally;
and, took no action to have him (1) transported
to
V.C.B.R.;
or
(2)
segregated
away
from
dangerous criminals in the jail as required by
§ 37.2-909(A)
of the Code.
(16). Pursuant § 37.2-913 (B) Mr. King was supposed to
facility
be transported to a secure [hospital]
specified
by
the
Department
where
a
person
designated by the Department shall perform a
mental health examination.
See
§ 73.2-913
of
the
Code.
(17) . Dr.
Rex
Miller
was
designated
by
the
Commissioner/Department
and
he
came
to
the
Patrick County Jail where he observed Mr. King in
the
dangerous
punitive
environment
and
then
interrogated him under those conditions instead
of a proper clinical setting.
Mr.
King
was
not
read
his
rights
by
law
enforcement; was not charged with any crime; and,
was denied consultation with an attorney by Dr.
Rex Miller while he was acting as an agent for
the office of the Attorney General.
See § 37.2913(B).
(18) . On
November
1,
2010,
in
the
Circuit
Court
for
Patrick County, Virginia, the Judge committed Mr.
King, " . . . to the custody of the DBHDS for
appropriate treatment and confinement in a secure
facility designated by the Commissioner of the
DBHDS
.
.
.
."
Mr. King's detainment at the Patrick County Jail
continued, illegally, in general population, from
11-1-2010
to
9-19-2011
before
he
was
taken
to
the
VCBR in Burkeville, Virginia. . . .
(19) . The Patrick County Court further ordered that Mr.
King,
civil
". . . shall have an annual review of his
commitment on November 1, 2011,
at 9:00
a.m.;
and,
.
.
." this
due
process
right
established by statute law . . . was completely
ignored by the defendants herein.
(21) . During the time Mr. King spent in the punitive
environment of the Patrick County Jail he was
told by Captain Darryl Smith he would be the
"Jail
Barber,"
and
cut
hair
of
the
inmates
and
convicted prisoners in the jail.
(22). . . . [N] ow the defendants had assigned him to
work with tools and in personal physical contact
with prisoners as he cut hair which clearly
violated § 37-90 9 (A) of the Code of Virginia.
(23). The Patrick County Court's Order on 11-1-2010
further
stated
that,
".
.
.
the
Commissioner
of
DBHDS shall provide a report to the Court, the
OAG, and Mr. King's attorney no later than sixty
(60) days prior to the hearing . . ." which was
ordered to be held on 11-1-2 011 at
9
a.m.
.
.
.
(24) . Sixty days prior to 11-1-2011 Mr.
King asked
Therapist Ms. Short and VCBR Facility Director
Ms. Kimberly H, Runion about his progress report.
Pamela
Sargent,
with OAG,
had not
scheduled
transportation for the hearing that was ordered
by the Court; and, instructed Ms. Runion to not
do Mr. King's evaluation until Oct. 2 012.
(Compl.
at
1-4.)
The Court generously construes King to raise
the following remaining claims for relief:
Claim Three:
The
Patrick
King's
County
due process
Jail
Defendants
rights8
violated
by housing
King in
general population and failing to transfer King
from the Patrick County Jail to the custody of
the VCBR despite his repeated complaints.
Claim Four:
Defendant Captain Darryl Smith violated King's
due process rights by assigning King to work as a
barber,
placing
violation of
him
contact
with
section 37.2-909(A)
of
inmates
in
the Virginia
Code.
For
the
reasons
stated
below,
Claims
Three
and
Four
will
be
dismissed with prejudice.
8 "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property,
amend.
XIV,
without due process of
§ 1.
law
. . . ."
U.S.
Const,
II.
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
STANDARD
Summary judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that
there
is
movant
Civ.
no
is
P.
genuine
dispute
entitled to
56(a).
The
as
to
judgment as
party
any
a
seeking
material
matter
of
summary
fact
and
Fed.
law."
the
R.
judgment bears
the
responsibility to inform the court of the basis for the motion,
and to
identify the parts
absence of
v.
of
the
a genuine issue of material fact.
Catrett,
477
U.S.
317,
323
party will bear the burden of
issue,
a
reliance
record which demonstrate
summary
solely
interrogatories,
judgment
on
the
(1986).
motion
trial
may
pleadings,
the
be
depositions,
in
answers
to
at 324
supported,
the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and,
affidavits
interrogatories,
facts
and
showing that
or
on
file,'
is a genuine
issue
draw
reviewing
all
party."
832,
835
Inc. , 477
a
summary
justifiable
United
States
(4th
Cir.
U.S.
242,
inferences
v.
1992)
255
judgment
in
Carolina
(citing
(1986)).
7
the
Transformer
However,
v.
a
Id.
(1986)).
of
Anderson
to
'specific
for trial.'"
motion,
favor
properly
answers
designate
(quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and 56(e)
In
is
"'depositions,
admissions
there
motion
(internal
marks
citing
the
Id.
made
quotation
by
When
nonmoving
on a dispositive
properly
and admissions on file."
omitted).
See Celotex Corp.
" [W] here
proof at
the
court
the
Co.,
nonmoving
978
Liberty
mere
"must
F.2d
Lobby,
scintilla of
evidence will not preclude summary judgment.
at
251
442,
(citing
448
judge,
Improvement
(1872)).
Co.
v.
Munson,
Anderson,
81
U.S.
477 U.S.
(14
Wall.)
" ' [T] here is a preliminary question for the
not whether there
is literally no evidence,
but whether
there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a
verdict
for
imposed.'"
In
the
Id.
party
.
.
(quoting Munson,
support
of
their
Patrick County Defendants
Mark
Sowder
Decl.,"
King's
of
ECF No.
arrest
. upon
the
at
submit
and detention
for
the
County
1-4)
the
onus
of
proof
is
81 U.S. at 448).
Motion
Patrick
51-1,
whom
Summary
Judgment,
Declaration of
Sheriff's
the
Lieutenant
Office
("Sowder
and several records pertaining to
from
King's
Inmate
file
1-6, ECF No.
with the Patrick County Jail (Sowder Decl. Exs.
Record on
51-
1, at 4-9.).
As
a
general
rule,
a
non-movant
must
respond to
a motion
for summary judgment with affidavits or other verified evidence.
Celotex Corp. , 477
U.S.
at
324.
Motion for Summary Judgment.
King
King's
did not
respond to
the
failure to respond to the
Motion for Summary Judgment permits the Court to rely solely on
the submissions of the Patrick County Defendants in deciding the
Motion for Summary Judgment.
153 7
(5th
Cir.
19 94)
See Forsyth v. Barr,
("'Rule
district court a duty to sift
56
does
not
19 F.3d 1527,
impose
upon
the
through the record in search of
evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment.'"
8
(quoting Skotak v. Tenneco Resins,
(5th Cir.
1992)));
see Fed.
Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915 & n.7
R. Civ.
P. 56(c)(3)
consider only the cited materials . . . .").
determining a motion for summary judgment,
that
facts
material
in
the
identified
by
the
facts are admitted,
statement of
motion."
E.D.
Va.
genuine
Loc.
moving
issues
Civ.
R.
Furthermore,
"[i]n
the Court may assume
party
unless such a
("The court need
in
its
fact is
listing
of
controverted
filed in opposition to the
56(B).
Additionally,
King's
Particularized Complaint fails to constitute admissible evidence
because
King did not
swear to
under penalty of perjury.
291,
300
(4th Cir.
In light of
the
contents
of
See United States v.
his
submissions
White,
366
F.3d
2004).
the
following facts are
foregoing principles and submissions,
established for the purposes
for Summary Judgment.
All permissible
of
inferences
the
the Motion
are drawn in
favor of King.
III.
On
July
20,
1993,
SUMMARY OF FACTS9
the
Circuit
Court
for
Patrick
County
("Circuit Court") convicted King of rape and entering a dwelling
house with the
To
intention to commit a rape and sentenced him to
provide
convictions, the
from the public
a
full
procedural
history
of
Court includes as facts information
record and records that Defendant
King's
available
James W.
Stewart,
III attached to his Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Dismiss.
(ECF No.
31.)
twenty-five years
Nos.
of
CR92009665-00
1993) .10
incarceration.
and
CR92009667-00
On November 24,
be an SVP,
release,
involuntary
secure
pursuant
the
to
Cir.
Ct.
accepted
the
Sexually
Cir.
incarceration
to
treatment
Ct.
July
November
24,
20,
release,
supervision
of
08-196,
The
plan,
and
Virginia
No.
2 009) .
added
Court
further
King
County
Code
at 1-6
Circuit
released
Patrick
to
hospitalization
Act,
King,
release
alternative
and
Predator
Commonwealth v.
King's
the
restrictive
Violent
conditional
on
A.
less
impatient
entered
restrictions
at
(Va.
King,
2009, the Circuit Court found King to
the
section 37.900 et seq.
Id.
Commonwealth v.
but nonetheless determined that King was suitable for
conditional
(Va.
See
from
probation.
2-6.
New Criminal Charge and Conviction
On June
22,
2010,
police
arrested
King
in
Patrick
County
and charged him with entering school property after a conviction
of
a sexually violent
offense on May 19,
section 18.2-37 0.5 of the Virginia Code.11
10
See
http://www.courts.state.va.us
2010,
a
felony under
(See Stewart's Mem.
(select
"Case
Status
and Information;" select "Circuit Court" from drop-down menu;
select hyperlink for "Case Information"; select "Patrick Circuit
Court" from drop-down menu and follow "Begin" button; type
"King, Joe," and then follow "Search by Name" button; then
follow hyperlink for "CR92009665-00" and "CR92009667-00").
11
"Every adult
who is convicted of a sexually violent
offense . . . shall be prohibited from entering or being present
(i) during school hours . . . upon any property he knows or has
reason to know is a public or private elementary school or child
10
Supp.
Mot.
Dismiss Ex.
2010,
the Circuit
2, at 1-2,
Court
pending felony charge,
ECF No.
31-2.)
On August 25,
issued a Disposition Notice
for King's
and ordered the Sheriff, Jail Officer,
or
Correctional Officer to confine King in their facility pending a
November
15,
2010
hearing
on
the
criminal
charges.
(Sowder
Decl. f 4; icL Ex. 1, at 1.)
On November 15,
Continued Custody,
or
Correctional
January
20,
2 010,
and directed that the Sheriff,
Officer
2011
the Circuit Court issued an Order for
to
hearing
hold
date
King
on
the
in
Jail Officer,
custody
felony
pending
charge.
the
(Sowder
Decl. f 5; id. Ex. 2, at 1.)
On January 20,
for
Continued
Jail
Custody,
Officer,
pending the
2011,
or
the Circuit Court issued another Order
and
further
Correctional
hearing date
directed
Officer
that
hold
on February 28,
the
King
2011.
Sheriff,
in
custody
(Sowder Decl.
H 6; id. Ex. 3, at 1.)
The
Circuit
Court
found
King
guilty
of
entering
school
property after having been adjudged a sexually violent offender,
and on February 28,
two
years
and
six
2011,
the
Circuit
months
of
imprisonment
Virginia Department of Corrections
three months of
of
day
incarceration
center
property
three
.
.
months.
.
."
Va.
(West 2014).
11
sentenced King
in
the
custody
to
of
("VDOC"), with two years and
the sentence suspended,
of
Court
leaving an active term
Commonwealth
v.
Code
18.2-3 70.5 (A)
Ann.
§
King,
No.
CR10019122-00,
at
1-2
(Va.
Cir.
Ct.
Feb.
28,
2011).
The
Court
entered a disposition notice directing the Sheriff, Jail Officer
or Correctional Officer to confine King in their facility due to
his conviction.
On
(Sowder Decl. f 7; id. Ex. 4, at 1.)
March
sentence,
8,
2011,
while
King
parole.
% 8;
(Sowder Decl.
commanded the
Sheriff
to
id.
#1
at 1.)
and #6
Ex.
5,
hold King in
action of the Virginia Parole Board.
Virginia
serving
his
criminal
the Virginia Parole Board issued a Warrant for King's
detention for violating Conditions
5,
was
of
at
his
1.)
supervised
The Warrant
jail subject
to
further
(Sowder Decl. H 8; id. Ex.
The March 17, 2011 "Arresting Officer's Return to the
Parole
Board"
and
"Certificate
of
Jailor"
both
note
King's incarceration at the Patrick County Jail as of that date.
(Sowder Decl. % 9, id. Ex. 6, at 1.)
On
that
September
16,
2011,
the
Virginia
King could be processed for release
the custody of the VCBR on September 19,
Supp.
Mot.
Dismiss Ex.
"cancel[led]
the
parole violation."
6,
[Order]
(Id.)
VCBR on September 19, 2011.
B.
While
at
1.)
holding
Parole
from
2011.
Board
ordered
incarceration to
(Stewart's Mem.
The Parole Board Action also
the
subject
King moved into
in
custody
for
the custody of the
(Compl. 3.)
Conditional Release Violation Proceedings
the
Patrick
County Jail
held
King
charge and conviction from June 22,
2010
through his
12
on his
criminal
return to
the VCBR on September 19, 2 011, the Circuit Court also conducted
proceedings on King's violations of the terms of his conditional
release
from civil
Patrick
County
detention
magistrate
as
an
issued
SVP.
an
On
July
Emergency
9,
2010,
Custody
Order
based upon a petition filed by King's probation officer,
Baliles,
stating
conditional
that
release,
school hours
King
had
including
violated
entering
several
commanded that
(See
(See id. at 1.)
the
As of July 9,
for the pending
The Emergency Custody Order
"ANY AUTHORIZED OFFICER"
and transport him to
take King into custody
Patrick County Jail
where
remain in custody pending hearing in Circuit Court."
On November 1, 2010,
No.
CL-08-196,
at
King
"must
(Id.)
King appeared in the Circuit Court for
his conditional release violation hearing.
King,
his
during
King remained in the Patrick County Jail
criminal charge.
of
property
Stewart's Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss Ex. 3, at 1-2.)
2010,
Ramona
school-related activity.
or during hours of
school
terms
a
1-4
(Va.
Cir.
See Commonwealth v.
Ct.
Nov.
1,
2010).
The
Circuit Court found that King had violated the conditions of his
release,
revoked
was
his
no
longer
conditional
ordered that King
for appropriate
designated
by
suitable
at
"be committed to
treatment
the
conditional
Id.
release.
for
1,
2010,
.
.
.
King was
13
The
Circuit
custody of
and confinement
Commissioner
hearing on November
the
2.
release,
."
in a
Id.
the
secure
and
Court
[DBHDS]
facility
Following
returned to
the
the
Patrick
County Jail
Mem.
Supp.
because
of
the
pending
felony charge.
Mot. Dismiss 3; see id. Ex. 2, at 1).
(Stewart's
King finished
his criminal sentence and moved into the custody of the VCBR on
September 19, 2 011.
(Compl. 3.)
IV.
In Claim Three,
King
ANALYSIS
argues
that
the
Patrick County Jail
Defendants violated King's due process rights by housing King in
general
population
of
the
Patrick
County
Jail
and
failing
to
transfer King from the Patrick County Jail to the custody of the
VCBR despite his repeated complaints.
SVP,
a
civil
committee,
Patrick County Jail,
on July
8,
2010
Jail
was
improperly
in general population,
through September
section § 37.2-909(A)
County
he
King contends that as an
of
Defendants
"segregated by sight
19,
and
that
In
the
arrest
King's
view,
the Virginia Code required the Patrick
to
and
the
in
between his
2011.
detain
sound at
King
all
either
times
the custody of a correctional facility,"
909(A),
detained
failure
to
Va.
segregate
in
the
VCBR
or
from prisoners
in
Code Ann.
King
with state law violated his due process rights.
in
§ 37.2-
compliance
In Claim Four,
King similarly argues that his assignment as jail barber during
his
purported
civil
detention violated his
due
process
rights
because it placed him in contact with inmates.
The
deprives
Due
an
Process
individual
Clause
of
a
applies
when
legitimate
14
government
liberty
or
action
property
interest.
564,
See Bd.
569-70
of Regents of State Colls,
(1972).
Thus,
the
first
v.
step
Roth,
in
408 U.S.
analyzing
a
procedural due process claim is to identify whether the alleged
conduct
affects
Beverati v.
omitted).
itself,
a
Smith,
A
protected
120
liberty
liberty
F.3d 500,
interest
502
or
(4th Cir.
may arise
from
or from state laws and policies.
545 U.S.
209,
220-21
(2005)
property
interest.
1997)
the
(citations
Constitution
Wilkinson v. Austin,
(citations omitted).
King fails to demonstrate that he had a legitimate liberty
interest
in
being
population of
new
felony
detained
somewhere
King
crime,
charge
alleges
[and]
environment
on
June
22,
that
was
of
he
arrested
the
Patrick
discussed,
King
omits
reference
to
his
proceedings
or
his
violation
2010
and
general
from
the VCBR on September 19,
2011.
and
law and
taken
County
misstates
into
Jail"
the
concurrent
lawful
his
for a
release
"violated no
previously
any
than
the Patrick County Jail between his arrest
incarceration to the custody of
While
other
committed no
the
punitive
(Compl.
truth.
as
King
wholly
and
parole
criminal
detention
2),
in
the
Patrick
County Jail for that felony charge and conviction.
The Patrick County Defendants have established that at all
times
relevant
Patrick
and
to
County Jail
violations
of
the
for
his
Complaint,
a
King
new criminal
parole,
15
not
was
charge
as
a
detained
and
civil
in
the
conviction,
detainee.
Accordingly,
the
Patrick County Jail
barber
Cf.
King fails to demonstrate that his incarceration in
in
general
or any assignment
population violated his
Baker v. McCollan,
443
U.S.
137,
to
serve
due
145-46
as
process
(1979)
a
jail
rights.
(finding no
due process violation for detaining defendant in jail after his
arrest
"[g]iven
the
requirements
and
that
Meachum v.
Fano,
probable
trial");
that
cause
one
that
detained
427 U.S.
"given a valid conviction,
215,
arrest
be
224
be
made
accorded
(1976)
only
a
on
speedy
(explaining
the criminal defendant has been
constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the
State
may
confine
him
....
in
any
of
its
prisons") .
Accordingly, Claims Three and Four will be dismissed.
V.
CONCLUSION
The Patrick County Defendants'
(ECF No. 50) will be granted.
Motion for Summary Judgment
King's claims and the action will
be dismissed.
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
send
a
copy
of
the
Memorandum
Opinion to King and counsel of record.
m
A^
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date' /w^J^cViI7 It?/*
16
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?