Henderson v. Clarke et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 2/24/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se. (sbea, )
IN THE
FOR THE
UNITED STATES
EASTERN
Richmond
RONALD L.T.
DISTRICT
COURT
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
FEB 2 4 2015
Division
OUnn. u^. OlS IBICT COURT
HENDERSON,
RICHLinNin
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No.
HAROLD W.
CLARKE,
3:12CV904
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ronald
L.
Henderson,
and
forma pauperis,
matter
is
Defendant
by
before
the
Ruth Hale
Defendants
Department
of
a
inmate
proceeding
pro
filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.^
Court
(ECF No.
Harold
Virginia
W.
on
the
25)
to
Dismiss
the
("VDOC"),
Director
A.
of
Harvey,
Warden
at
Wallens
Ridge
State
Prison,
Randall
Warden
at
Wallens
Ridge
State
Prison,
and
C.
the
the
1983.
filed
Assistant
Mathena,
the
Fred Schilling,
the
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 . . . .
§
by
Virginia
^ The statute provides, in pertinent part:
42 U.S.C.
The
filed
and the Motion to Dismiss
Clarke,
Corrections
Motion
se
Head of
ECF No.
the Medical
Department
of the VDOC
("VDOC
Defendants,
20)
I.
In
his
HENDERSON'S
Complaint,
COMPLAINT
Henderson
alleges
the
following
in
support of his claims for relief:
On 6 May 2010,
Prison
in
at 7:30 PM at Wallens Ridge State
cell
in
POD
B4,
Officer
R.
Gardner . . . intentionally
trapped
the
plaintiff's
right hand in the cell door closure assembly, causing
a puncture wound that penetrated his third finger of
his right hand and laserated [sic] the ligaments and
tendons
associated
with
primary
nuckle
[sic]
separating muscle and motor control of the finger.
The medical department applied a bandaid at 8:15
PM.
The medical department X-rayed the right hand on
18 May.
The follow up for medical treatment was 49
days from the incident, and at that time Dr. Thompson
refused
care.
The plaintiff has been in extreme pain since the
time
of
the
assault
and
has
loss
of
the
use
of
his
hand as a result of this pain, his hand presently has
limited range of motion and control all under extreme
pain.
(Compl.
12,
Defendants
ECF
No.
violated
1.)^
his
Henderson
Eighth
claims
Amendment^
that
right
the
"not
VDOC
to
be
^ By Memorandum Order entered November 26, 2014, the Court
dismissed
Stanford,
the
claims
against
and an Unknown Officer.
Defendants
(ECF No.
Gardner,
Thompson,
37.)
^ The Court employs the pagination assigned to the Complaint
by
the
CM/ECF
docketing
system.
The
Court
corrects
capitalization in quotations from Henderson's Complaint.
the
'' "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed,
Const,
nor
amend.
cruel
VIII.
and
unusual
punishments
inflicted."
U.S.
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment"
denying him adequate medical care
(id.
(id.
at 14),
at 15) .
and by
Henderson also
vaguely alleges that Defendants Clarice, Mathena, and Hale
violated
the
plaintiff's
right
to
access
to
the
court . . . denied access to a law library; denied
access to a legal professional to prepare this claim;
denied access to persons trained in the law; denied
access to materials to prepare or send this claim
(stamps and envelope) to this Court; [and] denied him
recourse for criminal acts in state court obstructing
justice and denying due process.
(Id.
at 14.)
"violated
Finally,
the
retaliation
Henderson states that the VDOC Defendants
plaintiff's
for
filing
right
this
to
claim
be
.
Henderson seeks monetary damages and a
free
.
.
from
."
meaningless
(Id.
at
15.)
preliminary injunction in
the form of a transfer from Red Onion or Wallens Ridge Prison.^
(Id.
at
16-17.)
Henderson alleges
additional claims.
no
supporting facts
For the reasons stated below,
for
his
the Motions to
Dismiss will be granted.
II.
Pursuant
to the
Court must dismiss
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Prison Litigation Reform Act
any action filed by a
determines the action
(1)
"is
frivolous"
("PLRA")
this
prisoner if the Court
or
(2)
"fails to state
^ The Court notes that Henderson was housed in Red Onion
State Prison at the time he filed his Complaint.
(ECF No. 3;
Compl. 5.)
He is now housed in River North Correctional Center.
(ECF No. 33.)
Because Henderson is no longer housed in Red
Onion or Wallens Ridge, his demand for injunctive relief in the
form of a transfer
(4th Cir. 2009)
186
is moot.
Rendelman v.
(citations omitted).
Rouse,
569
F.3d 182,
a
claim
on
which
§ 1915(e)(2);
includes
see
claims
relief
28
may
U.S.C.
based
upon
§
be
granted."
1915A.
'''an
The
28
first
indisputably
U.S.C.
standard
meritless
legal
theory,'" or claims where the "'factual contentions are clearly
baseless.'"
1992)
The
Clay
v.
Yates,
(quoting Neitzke v.
second
standard
dismiss under Fed.
"A
motion
sufficiency
contests
of
is
R.
to
a
809
Williams,
the
Civ.
P.
Arthur R.
952
Miller,
Federal
Rule
427
319,
(E.D.
327
for
a
Va.
(1989)).
motion
12(b)(6)
importantly,
facts,
(4th Cir.
U.S.
standard
under
applicability of defenses."
980 F.2d 943,
490
417,
to
12(b)(6).
dismiss
the
Supp.
familiar
complaint;
surrounding
F.
the
it
merits
does
of
a
tests
not
1992)
or
v.
(citing 5A Charles A.
Practice and Procedure §
resolve
claim,
Republican Party of N.C.
the
the
Martin,
Wright &
1356
(1990)).
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim,
a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the
complaint
is
plaintiff.
Cir.
1993);
applies
viewed
Mylan Labs.,
to
Inc.
factual
considering
a
identifying
pleadings
Ashcroft V.
the
see also Martin,
only
conclusions,
in
motion
are
Iqbal,
not
light
v.
Matkari,
980
dismiss
that,
entitled
662,
to
679
952.
however,
can
because
favorable
7 F.3d 1130,
F.2d at
allegations,
to
556 U.S.
most
choose
they
the
are
the
1134
(4th
This principle
and
"a
to
begin
no
assumption
(2009).
to
court
more
of
by
than
truth."
The
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
"require[
]
only
'a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is
entitled
to
relief,'
notice of what the
rests.'"
.
Bell Atl.
(second alteration
U.S.
41,
with
complaints
47
"formulaic
Id.
.
in
v.
containing
of
level,"
id.
570.
pleads
"A
reasonable
face,"
Corp.,
550
U.S.
at
to
facial
that
that
misconduct alleged."
defendant
fair
U.S.
544,
Conley
v.
satisfy
and
of
555
(2007)
Gibson,
this
standard
conclusions"
a
cause
of
355
or
relief
above
stating
the
a
plausibility
allows
the
Iqbal,
speculative
claim
the
when
court
defendant
is
that
the
556 U.S.
at
678
in
order
is
Id.
plaintiff
to
draw
liable
Therefore,
556).
a
action."
rather than merely "conceivable."
content
inference
the
a plaintiff must allege facts
omitted),
claim has
factual
"labels
elements
right
550
cannot
Instead,
(citation
"plausible on its
only
the
(citations omitted).
a
'give
(quoting
Plaintiffs
raise
to
Twombly,
original)
(1957)).
"to
order
claim is and the grounds upon which i t
Corp.
recitation
sufficient
at
.
in
the
for
the
(citing Bell Atl.
for
a
claim
or
complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim,
the
plaintiff
the
must
"allege
elements of
[his or]
& Co.,
F.3d
324
Microsoft
Corp.,
United States,
her claim."
761,
309
facts
765
F.3d
289 F.3d 270,
(4th
193,
281
sufficient
Bass v.
Cir.
213
E.I.
2003)
(4th
(4th Cir.
to
state
DuPont de Nemours
(citing
Cir.
all
2002);
2002)).
Dickson
v.
lodice
v.
Lastly,
while
complaints,
1978),
the
Gordon
it
does
v.
not
Court
Leeke,
act
as
liberally
574
the
F.2d
construes
1147,
inmate's
pro
1151
(4th
advocate,
sua
se
Cir.
sponte
developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed
to
clearly
Carroll,
raise
107
concurring);
(4th Cir.
on
the
241,
F.3d
face
243
v.
City
Beaudett
of
his
(4th
of
complaint.
Cir.
See
1997)
Hampton,
775
Brock
(Luttig,
F.2d
1274,
v.
J.,
1278
1985).
III.
In order to state a
ANALYSIS
viable claim under 42 U.S.C.
plaintiff must allege that a
§
1983,
a
person acting under color of state
law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right
conferred
by
a
law
of
the
United
States.
Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley,
Cir.
1998)
vicarious
(citing
42
liability
plaintiff must
is
[allege]
U.S.C.
§
1983).
inapplicable
See
Furthermore,
to
Vinnedqe
that
the
v.
...
§
doctrine
§ 1983 actions).
that
550
of
v.
F.2d
Iqbal,
926,
respondeat
Accordingly,
affirmatively
Total
658
(4th
"[bjecause
1983
suits,
a
that each Government-official defendant,
Ashcroft
Gibbs,
v.
145 F.3d 653,
through the official's own individual actions,
Constitution."
Dowe
show
556
928
U.S.
(4th
superior
has violated the
662,
is
the
official
(noting
inapplicable
the plaintiff must
"that
(2009);
1977)
Cir.
676
allege
charged
to
facts
acted
personally
Vinnedge,
in
the
deprivation
of
the
plaintiff [']s
rights."
550 F.2d at 928.
Henderson fails to allege any facts that plausibly point to
any conduct
or
on
Schilling
rights.
in
the part
the
Henderson,
of
Defendants
alleged
instead,
Clarke,
deprivation
of
Mathena,
any
Harvey,
constitutional
seeks to hold the VDOC Defendants
responsible under a theory of respondeat superior.^
That theory
of liability fails to provide a basis for relief under § 1983.
® In
his
Complaint,
Henderson
alleges
only
supervisory
liability
without
any
personal
involvement
by
the
VDOC
Defendants.
For example, Henderson alleges that Clarke, as the
Director of the VDOC, "is legally culpable for acts or omissions
of the staff of the Virginia Department of Corrections . . . and
the lack and disregard for care and welfare shown to persons
incarcerated at Wallens Ridge State Prison."
(Compl. 7-8.)
Henderson's allegations against Mathena, Harvey, and Schilling
are similarly vague and fail to allege that the VDOC Defendants
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
Buried within a timeline of his grievance history, in his
"Memorandum in
Support
of
Response
to Motion
to
Dismiss,"
Henderson states for the first time that "an informal complaint
was directed to assistant warden A. Harvey on May 7, 2010."
{Mem. Supp. Resp. 4, ECF No. 30.)
Similarly, Henderson lists in
his timeline "appeal to Health Services Director Fred Schilling
in Richmond."
(Mem. Supp. Resp. Attach. Ex. A, at 4, ECF No.
32-1 (capitalization corrected).)
Henderson's vague mention of
the Defendants'
names in a grievance timeline,
without any
supporting facts, fail to sufficiently indicate that Defendants
Harvey or Schilling personally participated in the deprivation
of Henderson's constitutional rights.
See Nelson v. Hill, No.
3:08CV603,
2010
WL
1005320,
at
*2
(E.D.
Va.
Mar.
17,
2010)
(citation
omitted)
(explaining
that
"the
Court
will
not . . . substantiate claims found in the . . . complaint with
allegations
lurking
in
the
host
of
submissions
Plaintiff
deposited with the Court").
Accordingly,
Clarke,
the
Mathena,
Henderson's
Motion
Harvey,
claims
to
Dismiss
filed
by
and Schilling will be
against
these
Defendants
Defendants
granted,"' and
will
be
dismissed
without prejudice.
Henderson alleges
courts.
Specifically he
bring
denying
a
her
Commonwealth
States."
Ruth Hale denied him access
"was
the Wise County
and who refused
criminal
oath
of
that
complaint
to
uphold
Virginia
(Compl.
^ While an
claims
11.)
the
and
Hale
to the
to whom the assault was reported to,
Magistrate,
to
that
against
laws
the
and
Officer
R.
Gardner,
constitution
Constitution
of
the
of
the
United
Henderson's claim against Defendant Hale
inmate's
letters to prison administrators may
establish a basis for § 1983 liability, the plaintiff must
allege facts that plausibly posit "that the communication, in
its content and manner of transmission, gave the prison official
sufficient
notice
to
alert
him
or
her
to
'an
excessive
risk
to
inmate health or safety.'"
Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 993
(7th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994)).
Henderson must allege that Defendants Harvey and
Schilling "knew of a constitutional deprivation and approved it,
turned a blind eye to it, failed to remedy it, or in some way
personally
participated."
Id.
at
994
(citing
Gentry
v.
Duckworth,
65 F.3d 555,
561
(7th Cir.
1995)).
Henderson's
Complaint
manner
of
lacks
any
detail
transmission
of
about
his
the
content,
communications
frequency,
to
or
Defendants
Harvey or Schilling.
Thus, Henderson's vague allegations fall
short of permitting the conclusion that his complaints placed
Defendants Harvey and Schilling on sufficient notice of an
excessive risk of harm to Henderson's health or safety.
See id.
Even if Henderson had alleged sufficient facts about Harvey
or Schilling, "a superior's after-the-fact denial of a grievance
falls short of establishing § 1983 liability."
DePaola v. Ray,
No. 7:12cv00139, 2013 WL 4451236, at *8 (W.D. Va. July 22, 2013)
(citing Brooks v. Beard, 167 F. App'x 923, 925 (3rd Cir. 2006)).
lacks
legal merit.
citizen
lacks
prosecution
Colo.
V.
Linda
R.S.
a
or
Rock,
Henderson's
It
is well established that a
judicially
nonprosecution
Gonzales,
v.
Richard
P.,
denied
Motions
Defendants'
as
748,
410
Town
767 n.l3
U.S.
Hale
of
the
Castle
(2005)
(quoting
619
(1973)).
614,
is
in
legally
frivolous.
Defendant Male's Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
Defendants'
be
interest
another.'"
Defendant
IV.
granted.
of
545 U.S.
claim against
Accordingly,
cognizable
"'a private
moot.
to
CONCLUSION
Dismiss
(ECF
Henderson's
claims
20,
25)
(ECF Nos.
Motions to Transfer
Nos.
18,
and
the
action
will
23)
be
will
will
be
dismissed.
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
send
a
copy
of
the
Memorandum
Opinion to Henderson and counsel of record.
/s/
.0.
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date: February 24, 2015
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?