Bowman v. Mann et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/17/2016. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JIMMY BOWMAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15CV521 J.T. MANN; DET. BRYANT, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jimmy Bowman, forma pauperis, has a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in filed this 42 U.S.C. Memorandum Order entered on March 16, § 2016, Bowman to submit a Particularized Complaint. 3.) his 1983 action. 1 By the Court directed (ECF No. 12, at 2- Bowman complied with the Court's directive and submitted Particularized Complaint. ( ECF No. 13. ) The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants 1 The 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. Mann and Bryant. 2 No. 24) , ( ECF No. 19. ) Bowman has responded and Defendants have filed a reply the reasons stated below, ( ECF No. ( ECF 2 5) . For the Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss. I. "A motion sufficiency of STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS to a dismiss under complaint; Rule importantly, contests surrounding the facts, applicability of defenses." tests 12 (b) (6) it does not the resolve the merits of a claim, or the Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F. 2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing SA Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 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 the light most favorable to the Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th see also Martin, only to factual considering a identifying pleadings conclusions, in motion are not 980 F. 2d at 952. allegations, to that, dismiss can because entitled to however, choose they the are This principle and "a to begin no assumption more of court by than truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 2 Mann and Bryant are detectives with the Prince George, Virginia Police Department. (Part. Compl. 1, ECF No. 13.) 2 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it Bell Atl. rests.'" Corp. v. Twombly, (second alteration in original) U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). with complaints "formulaic Id. level, " "plausible raise on its "conceivable." Id. the 555 (2007) Gibson, of a cause 355 standard "labels and conclusions" elements of or a action." Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts right a (citation id. (quoting Conley v. containing only recitation of "to 544, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this (citations omitted) . sufficient 550 U.S. to relief omitted), face," id. above stating at 570, a the speculative claim rather that than is merely "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference misconduct alleged. Corp., 550 U.S. 11 that Iqbal, at 556). survive dismissal for the defendant 556 U.S. is liable for at 678 (citing Bell Atl. In order for a claim or complaint to failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of or] 761, her claim." 765 F.3d 193, 213 270, 281 Bass v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours (4th Cir. 2003) the & Co., [his 324 F. 3d (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 (4th Cir. 2002); Iodice v. United States, 289 F.3d (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, 3 while the Court liberally cons trues 1151 and pro se (4th Cir. develop, that the complaint. 1997) complaints, 1978), sua inmate Gordon v. Leeke, 5 74 F. 2d 114 7, it will not act as the inmate's advocate sponte, failed statutory and clearly raise to See Brock v. Carroll, constitutional on the 107 F.3d 241, face 243 claims of his {4th Cir. {Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS In his Particularized Complaint, Bowman states: 1. On October 11, 2013 a search warrant was executed at 4907 Jefferson Park Rd. , Prince George, Va. 2. The search warrant specified to search the residence and curtilage. No person (s) were named in the search warrant. 3. Plaintiff was an occupant of the residence along with 4 other adults and a [n] infant when the search commenced. 4. Plaintiff was arrested and questioned for [the] duration of the search and was never free to leave. (Part. Compl. 1, ECF No. 13.) Bowman seeks $250, 000. 00 from each Defendant, as well as a Court Order directing Defendants to "pay the cost of the filing fee for this law suit." Bowman's Particularized Complaint raises (Id. at 3.) the following claims for relief: Claim One: 3 houses, Defendants violated Bowman's rights under by arresting him the Fourth Amendment 3 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and 4 without probable cause while the warrant was executed. (Id. at 1-2.) search Claim Two: Defendants violated Bowman's right to be free from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment 4 by "illegally detain [ing] and question [ing]" him. (Id. at 2.) Claim Three: Defendants violated Bowman's rights to (a) due process and (b) equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment 5 when Bowman was "illegally detained and question [ed] without being read Miranda [ 6 ] rights." (Id. at 2-3 (emphasis added) . ) Claim Four: Defendants violated Bowman's right to due process under the Virginia Constitution 7 when Bowman was "illegally detained and question [ed] without being read Miranda rights." (Id. at 2-3 (emphasis added).) seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. 4 "No person shall . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. amend. V. 5 "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 6 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 7 "That no persons shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law . " Va. Const. art. I I § 11. 5 III. ANALYSIS A. Fourth Amendment Claim In Claim One, rights under the Bowman contends that Defendants violated his "arrest [ing him] without probable cause" while the search warrant was executed. (Part. Comp!. 1.) Fourth Amendment by Bowman was an occupant of the house at the time the search was conducted. In his Response, Bowman indicates that he "was handcuffed at the onset of the search and remained so for the duration." The Fourth unreasonable However, (Resp. 1.) Amendment searches and individuals protects u. s . seizures." the Supreme Court has Const . "against amend IV. "held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority 'to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted. ' " Muehler v. Summers, Mena, 452 U.S. 544 692, U.S. 705 93, 98 (2005) {1981)). (quoting Michigan v. Moreover, "[a]n officer's authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the extent of the 'quantum of proof justifying detention or the intrusion to be imposed by the {quoting Summers, 452 U.S. at 705 n.19). to detain multiple occupants the more reasonable." Id. [makes] seizure. ' " Furthermore, 6 "the need the use of handcuffs all {citing Maryland v. Wilson, 408, 414 {1997)). Id. 519 U.S. Here, Bowman was one of several occupants of 4907 Jefferson Park Road at the time of the search, and a search warrant had Thus , been issued for the search of that residence. detention during Defendants' 100 the duration use of handcuffs, of the search, Bowman' s as well See id. were reasonable. as at 99- (concluding same regarding two- to three-hour detention, in handcuffs, of occupants during execution of a search warrant for gang-related activity) ; Bills v. 981, 983-84 (9th Cir. 2005) City of Rial to, 15 7 F. App' x (concluding that use of handcuffs on homeowner during search that lasted approximately an hour was Because no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, permissible) . Claim One will be dismissed. B. Fifth Amendment Claim In Claim Two, right Bowman alleges that Defendants violated his to be free Amendment by "illegally (Part. Compl. a witness plurality detain[ing] and against the U. S . himself." the Fifth question[ing] him." Supreme Court compelled by police Const . amend. held, however, has interrogation of not be used against a defendant at trial, their use under . shall be compelled in any criminal case to of "[s] tatements self-incrimination The Self-Incrimination Clause requires that 2.) " [n] o persons . be from in a criminal case Incrimination Clause occurs." that a V. A that course may but it is not until violation of the Self- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 7 767 (2003) allege (internal citations omitted). any rights; trial thus, action ipso facto, 2005) violated his claim his fails (dismissing plaintiff's § Fifth on Burrell v. Virginia, plurality's reasoning." (4th Cir. that Here, Bowman "does not Amendment the [Chavez] 395 F.3d 508, 514 1983 claim where the complaint failed to indicate plaintiff's statements were used in a court proceeding) . Accordingly, Claim Two lacks merit and will be dismissed. C. Fourteenth Amendment Claim In Claim Three (a) Bowman I contends that Defendants violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by "illegally detain [ing] and question [ing him] read Miranda rights." {Part. Compl. 2-3.) Court "that has explained Constitution 'provides an constitutional protection,' claims under generalized that notion Gabbert, 526 U.S. (quoting Graham discussed above, a of Connor, Bowman's provision provision and due of the source textual court must assess a substantive 293 However, the Supreme another explicit explicit 286, v. where without being of plaintiff's 'not process.'" the Conn more v. (some internal quotations omitted) 490 claims U.S. 386, 395 (1989)). As regarding his detention and subsequent questioning fall under the ambit of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. Because Bowman cannot maintain a general due process claim, Claim Three (a) will be dismissed. 8 In Claim Three (b) , Bowman alleges that Defendants violated his when right to they equal protection under "illegally detained and [reading him his] Miranda rights." is Protection Clause the Fourteenth Amendment question [ed] [him] (Part. Comp. 3.) essentially a without "The Equal direction that persons similarly situated should be treated alike." Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., (citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 473 U .S. 216 432, all City of 439 (1985) Bowman fails (1982)). to allege facts suggesting that he was treated differently than any other occupant of the residence that was searched. Accordingly, Claim Three (b) will be dismissed. 4. Virginia Constitution Claim In Claim Four, Bowman alleges that Defendants violated his right to due process under the Virginia Constitution when Bowman was "illegally detained and questions without being read Miranda rights." (Part. Compl. 2-3.) not cognizable under 161, 163 (4th Cir. supplemental § Bowman's claim under state law is See Clark v. 1983. 855 F. 2d 156, The Court "may decline to exercise 1988). jurisdiction Link, over a claim" if the Court "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 u. s. c. § determining 13 6 7 ( c) ( 3) . whether or not Courts to "enjoy retain federal claims have been extinguished." F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995) wide latitude jurisdiction all Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 (citing Noble v. White, 9 when in 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5th dismissed Cir. Bowman's 1993)). federal Because claims, the it declines supplemental jurisdiction over Claim Four. of Chesapeake, 174 F.3d 437, 444 Court has to already exercise See Kendall v. City (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Claim Four will be dismissed without prejudice. IV. For the foregoing CONCLUSION reasons, (ECF No. 19) will be granted. be dismissed. Defendants' Claims One, Two, and Three will Claim Four will be dismissed without prejudice. The action will be dismissed. note § Motion to Dismiss the disposition of The Clerk will be directed to the action for purposes of 2 8 U.S. C. 1915 (g) . The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Bowman and counsel of record. It is so ORDERED. /s/ /fu1 ;. Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Date: f/d~/'I, Richmond, Virginia 'UI/, 10

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?