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, )

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