Jack v. Chapman et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 08/30/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed. (ccol, )

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

Richmond Division
JAMES L.

AI)G3 020I7

JACK,

1 rLERK U.S. DiSTRiCl UUURl

Plaintiff,

I^

V.

Civil Action No.

MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, ^

fuchmond.va

3:16CV316

al. ,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

James L.

Jack,

a

Virginia inmate,

action under 42 U.S.C.
for

evaluation

§ 1997e{c),

§ 1983.^

pursuant

to

Federal Rule of

28

has submitted this civil

The matter is before the Court
U.S.C.

§

1915A,

42

U.S.C.

Civil Procedure Rule 8(a),

20(a),^

^ 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.

^ (2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one
action as defendants

(A)

any right

to

if:

relief

is

asserted against

them

jointly,
severally,
or in the
respect to or arising out of the

alternative with
same transaction,

occurrence,
occurrences;

transactions

(B)

any

or
and

question

series

of

defendants will arise

law

of

or

fact

in the action.

common

to

or

all

and Jack's compliance with the Court's May 9,

Order.

Specifically,

2017 Memorandum

by Memorandum Order entered May 9,

2017,

the Court directed Jack to submit a particularized complaint.
(ECF No.

22.)

The Court noted that Jack's submissions failed to

provide each named defendant

"with fair notice of the facts and

legal basis upon which his or her liability rests."

(Id. at 2

(citation

that

omitted).)

particularized

complaint

defendants

in

complaint

also

defendant

warned

the

was

particularized

would

drop

as
all

named defendant.

On

June

9,

Complaint.

why

to

(ECF

explain

him.

he

forth

defendants

2017,

include

(Id.)

failed

that
in

submit

Civ.

P.

2 0(a).

believed

an

with

Memorandum

joined

the

each
Court

appropriate

the

Order,

the

No.

Court

26.)

received

with

As

Jack's

explained

joinder
the

Court

the

first

Particularized

below,

the

to comply with the directives of

the Court, including the rules regarding joinder.

R.

named

The particularized

Furthermore,

properly

of

his

at 3.)

Particularized Complaint fails

Fed.

list

Jack

comported

the

not

to

Jack

a

(Id.)

complaint

(Id.

to

to

if

set

advised

paragraph.

needed

that

Court

needed

first

liable

Jack

requirements

The

I.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act

("PLRA")

this

Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court
determines the action

(1)

a

relief

claim

on

which

§ 1915(e)(2);

includes

see

claims

28

"is frivolous"

may

U.S.C.

based

upon

§

be

or

"fails to state

granted."

1915A.

"*an

(2)

The

28
first

U.S.C.
standard

indisputably 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

R.

to

a

is

the

Civ.

P.

Arthur R.

952

Miller,

490

417,

U.S.

427

319,

standard

(E.D.

327

for

a

Va.

(1989)).

motion

to

12(b)(6).

under

Rule

12(b)(6)

importantly,

facts,

applicability of defenses."

980 F.2d 943,

Supp.

familiar

dismiss

the

F.

Williams,

complaint;

surrounding

809

the

it

merits

does

of

a

tests

not

the

resolve

claim,

or

the

Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin,

(4th Cir. 1992)

(citing 5A Charles A.

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356

Wright &
(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
plaintiff.

Cir.

1993);

applies

is

viewed

in

Mylan Labs.,

the

to

factual

most

Inc. v. Matkari,

see also Martin,

only

light

favorable

7 F.3d 1130,

980 F.2d at 952.

allegations,

however,

to

the

1134

{4th

This principle
and

"a

court

considering

a

identifying

pleadings

conclusions,

motion

are

to

dismiss

that,

not

because

entitled

to

556 U.S. 662,

Ashcroft V. Icrbal,

can

679

choose

they

the

to

are

begin

no

assumption

more
of

by
than

truth."

(2009).

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
rests.'"

Bell Atl.

Corp.

v.

Twombly,

(second alteration in original)
U.S.

41,

47

with

complaints

"formulaic

Id.

(1957)).

recitation

(citations omitted).

sufficient
level,"

"to

id.

"plausible

raise

a

(citation

on

its

"conceivable."

Id.

plaintiff pleads
the

of

reasonable

550 U.S.

inference

plaintiff

must

elements

right

to

id.

(2007)

Gibson,

satisfy this

standard

and conclusions"

of

a

cause

of

3 55

or a

action."

a plaintiff must allege facts
relief

omitted),

content
that

Iqbal,

at 556) .
for

"labels

555

above

stating

at

570,

the

a

speculative

claim

rather

than

that

is

merely

"A claim has facial plausibility when the

factual

survive dismissal

cannot

Instead,

face,"

misconduct alleged."
Corp.,

only

the

544,

(quoting Conley v.

Plaintiffs

containing

550 U.S.

the

allows

the

defendant

556 U.S.

is

at 678

court
liable

to draw
for

the

(citing Bell Atl.

In order for a claim or complaint to

failure

"allege

that

facts

to

state a

claim,

sufficient

to

therefore,
state

all

the
the

elements of

[his or]

& Co.,

F.3d 761,

324

Microsoft Corp.,

United States,

her claim."

765

Bass v.

(4th Cir.

309 F.3d 193,

289

F.3d

213

270,

E.I. DuPont de Nemours

2003)

(citing Dickson v.

(4th Cir.

281

lodice v.

Cir. 2002)).

(4th

2002);

Lastly,

while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v.
Leeke,

the

574 F.2d 1147,

inmate's

1151

advocate

(4th Cir.

and

develop,

1978),

sua

i t will not act as

sponte,

statutory and

constitutional claims that the inmate failed to clearly raise on
the face of his complaint.
243

(4th Cir.

of Hampton,

1997)

See Brock v.

(Luttig,

775 F.2d 1274,

J.,

1278

II.

The

Federal

plaintiff's
pleading.

Rules

ability
See

to

Fed.

occurrence test'

of

R.

of

Carroll,

concurring) ;

(4th Cir.

107 F.3d 241,

Beaudett v.

City

1985).

JOINDER

Civil

Procedure

join multiple
Civ.

P.

[Rule 20]

.

defendants

20(a).

,

.

place

"The

limits

in

a

on

single

'transaction

'permit[s]

a

or

all reasonably

related claims for relief by or against different parties to be
tried in a single proceeding.
is unnecessary,"'

Cir. 1983)
1333

(8th

plaintiff

Saval v.

Absolute identity of all events

BL Ltd. ,

710

F.2d 1027,

1031

(4th

(quoting Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330,
Cir.

to

1974)) .

add

claims

"But,

Rule

'against

20

does

different

not

authorize

parties

present[ ] entirely different factual and legal issues.'"

a

[that]
Sykes

V.

Bayer Pharm.

Corp. ,

(alterations

in

the

"And,

addition

objectives

2007

WL

the

of

party

or

delay.'"

Inc.,

Id.

In

is

action

(W.D.

20

Va.

Oct.

not

however,

21,

and

foster

the

expediting

the

v.

Chugach

Support

the

with

fairness

remedies

is

Gibbs,

Servs.,

2007)).

Court

is

mindful

that

toward entertaining the broadest possible

v.

Lee,

but will result in prejudice, expense,

joinder,

Mine Workers of Am.

2008)

v.

Va.

will

convenience

(4th Cir.

parties and

impulse,

(E.D.

Lovelace
*1

Rule

218 n.5

consistent

claims,

under

Aleman

addressing

impulse

at

(quoting

485 F.3d 206,

218

'deny joinder if it determines that

[promoting

resolution of disputes],

2d 208,

(quoting

3069660,

a court may

of

Supp.

original)

No. 7:03cv00395,

2007)).

548 F.

to

the

parties;

scope of

joinder

strongly encouraged."

383 U.S.

does not provide a

715,

724

"the

United

(1966).

plaintiff free

of

This

license to

join multiple defendants into a single lawsuit where the claims
against

Smith,
130

the

defendants

507 P.3d 605,

F.3d

1348,

1350

are

607

unrelated.

(7th Cir.

(9th

Cir.

See,

2007) ;

1997).

e.g.,

George

Coughlin v.
Thus,

» [a]

v.

Rogers,
buckshot

complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person—say,
a

suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff,

B defamed

him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his
copyright,

all

in different

filed by a prisoner."

George,

transactions—should be rejected if
507 F.3d at 607.

"The Court's obligations under the PLRA include review for

compliance with Rule 20(a)."

Coles v. McNeely, No. 3:11CV130,

2011 WL 3703117, at *3 (E.D. Va. Aug 23,

2011)

(citing George,

507 F.3d at 607).

Thus, multiple claims against a single party are
fine,

but

Claim A against Defendant 1

should not be

joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.
Unrelated claims against different defendants belong
in different suits,

not only to prevent the sort of

morass that these complaints have produced but also to

ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees.
Id.

(citing

28

U.S.C.

§

1915(g);

7:08cv00276, 2009 WL 1321694, at *4

allow

[plaintiff]

to

pay one

Showalter

Johnson,

No.

(W.D. Va. May 12, 2009)

("To

filing

fee

v.

yet

join disparate

claims against dozens of parties flies in the face of the letter
and spirit of the PLRA.")

III.

Jack's
individuals

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Particularized
as

Particularized

defendants.

Complaint

to

Complaint
The

raise

names

Court

the

thirty-one

construes

following

Jack's

claims

relief:

Claim One:

Defendant

Dikeman

"violated

a

police

order
by
placing
allegations
to
a
subject on the Internet, via Facebook,

alleging a

crime that had taken place

in Leesburg, Va."

Claim Two:

(Part. Compl. 2.)

Defendants Dikeman,
Rima,
and Lowden
violated Jack's rights under the Fourth

for

Amendment^

by

searching

arresting

him

"without

probable cause."

Claim Three:

him

a

and

warrant,

or

(Id.)

Defendants Dikeman,
Rima,
and Lowden
violated Jack's rights under the Fifth''

and Sixth Amendments^ by not providing
Jack an
attorney

opportunity to contact his
before
interrogating
him.

(Id.)

Claim Four:

Defendants Dikeman,
Rima,
violated
Jack's
rights

and Lowden
under
the

Fourteenth Amendment^ by subjecting him
to

unnecessary

use

of

force,

resulted in Jack's back injury.
Claim Five:

which

(Id.)

Defendants Reeves and Dunseith violated
Jack's
rights
under
the
Fourteenth

^ "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses,

papers,

seizures,

and

effects,

against

shall not be violated .

.

unreasonable

.

."

U.S.

searches

Const,

amend,

and
IV.

"No person shall . . . be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself."
U.S. Const, amend. V.

® In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
the

right

to

a

impartial jury .

speedy
.

and

and cause of the accusation;

witnesses against him;
obtaining

witnesses

in

Assistance of Counsel
U.S.

Const,

amend.

public

trial,

. and to be informed of

by

an

the nature

to be confronted with the

to have compulsory process for
his

favor,

and

to

have

the

for his defence.

VI.

® "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law . . . ."
U.S. Const,
amend. XIV, § 1.
In his Particularized Complaint, Jack states
that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by various
Defendants.
However, because Jack was a pretrial detainee at
the time of the alleged incidents, the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment governs his claims.
See Robles v. Prince
George' s Cty. ,
omitted).

Md. ,

302

F.3d 262,

269

(4th Cir.

2002)

(citation

Amendment

by

using

excessive

against him on February 7,
Jack was a

force

2015,

pretrial detainee.

when

(Id.

at

3.)

Defendant Zilke violated Jack's rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment by using
excessive force against him on February

Claim Six:

14,
Claim Seven:

2015.

(Id.)

Defendants
Trinh
and
Jack's
rights
under

Brand
violated
the
Fourteenth

Amendment
by
using
excessive
force
against him on April 18, 2015.
(Id.)
Claim Eight:

Defendant Neff violated Jack's rights
under
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
by
sexually harassing Jack on June 21,
2015.

(Id.

at 4.)

Defendants

Claim Nine:

Neff

and

Briggs

violated

Jack's rights under the First Amendment"'
by confiscating Jack's religious items.
(Id.)

Defendant Snell violated Jack's rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment by using
excessive force against him on August 3
and 4, 2015.
(Id.)®

Claim Ten:

Jack seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

(Id. at 5.)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
U.S.

Const,

amend.

I.

® Jack mentions that a Deputy Bermudez and a Sergeant
Freeman were involved in this use of excessive force.
Compl.

4.)

Jack,

however,

(Part.

did not include these individuals in

his list of defendants on the first page of his Particularized
Complaint.

Because

defendants

in

Complaint,

the

the

Jack

first

Court

was

only

who
are
listed
Particularized Complaint.

individuals

directed

paragraph
considers

on

the

to

of

list

his
as

all

defendants

first

named

Particularized

page

those

of

his

The Defendants named in Jack's ten claims are all employed
by the Loudoun County, Virginia, Sheriff's Department ("LCSD").

Jack's first four claims involve events that occurred during
Jack's

arrest.

His

other

six

claims

occurred during Jack's subsequent

involve

events

incarceration at

the

that

Loudoun

County Adult Detention Center ("LCADC").

Jack also names as defendants:

Michael L. Chapman, Sheriff

of Loudoun County, Virginia; Major Manning of the LCSD; Captains
Ebersole and Cox of the LCSD; Lieutenant Bradley of the LCSD;
Sergeants
O'Toole,
Ashley,

Hearns

and

Brightwell,
Deere,

Pam,

Dumar
Morin,

Vicky,

of

the

and

LCSD;

Florres

Deputies

of

the

does not

even mention these defendants

Particularized

LCSD;

and Mosby at the LCADC;

Stewart, a physician's assistant at the LCADC.

Complaint.

"Where

a

in

Martin,
Nurses

and Yvonne

Jack, however,

the body of

complaint

alleges

his
no

specific act or conduct on the part of the defendant and the

complaint is silent as

to the defendant except for his name

appearing in the caption, the complaint is properly dismissed,

even

under

the

complaints."

1974)
306,

claim

liberal

Potter v.

construction
Clark,

to

be

497 F.2d 1206,

given
1207

pro

se

(7th Cir.

{citing U.S. ex rel. Brzozowski v. Randall, 281 F. Supp.
312

(E.D.

Pa.

against

Bradley,

Hearns,

1968)) .

Defendants
Dumar,

Thus,

Jack has

Chapman,
Martin,
10

failed to state a

Manning,

O'Toole,

Ebersole,

Brightwell,

Cox,
Morin,

Plorres, Ashley, Deere, Pam, Vicky, Mosby, and Yvonne Stewart.
Accordingly,

the

claims

against

these

Defendants

will

be

dismissed without prejudice.

Jack also names as defendants Lieutenant Richardson of the

LCSD and Nurse Barbra at the LCADC.

Jack fails, however, to

describe how either Richardson or Barbra allegedly violated his
constitutional rights.

Part. Compl. 3, 4.)

Thus, Jack has

failed to state a claim for relief against Defendants Richardson

and

Barbra.

Accordingly,

his

claims

against

Defendants

Richardson and Barbra will also be dismissed without prejudice.
IV.

DISMISSAL OF IMPROPERLY JOINED PARTIES

The Court now proceeds with the analysis outlined in the
May 9, 2017 Memorandum Order.

The first named defendant in the

action is Sean L. Dikeman, a Detective with the LCSD.

Compl. 1.)

Four.

(Part.

Dikeman also is named in Claims Two, Three, and

Claims Two, Three, and Four also names, as Defendants,

Rima and Lowden,

Deputies with the LCSD.

Accordingly,

the

action proceeds on Claims One through Four against Dikeman,
Rima, and Lowden.

Claims Five through Ten will be dismissed

without prejudice.®

The claims against Reeves, Dunseith, Zilke, Trinh, Brand,
Briggs, and Snell neither arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence nor present common questions of law
"As such, this
and fact as Claims One through Four.
[Particularized C]omplaint comprises multiple law suits, rather

Neff,

11

IV.
Jack's

ANALYSIS OF REMAINING CLAIMS

remaining

claims

concern

arrest by Dikeman, Rima, and Lowden.

events

surrounding

his

In Claim One, Jack alleges

that Dikeman "violated a police order by placing allegations to
a subject on the Internet,

via Facebook,

had taken place in Leesburg, Va . "
Two,

Jack contends that Dikeman,

alleging a crime that

(Part. Compl. 2.}
Rima,

In Claim

and Lowden violated his

rights under the Fourth Amendment by arresting him and searching
him "without a
Three,

warrant,

or probable cause."

Jack argues that Dikeman,

Rima,

{Id.}

In Claim

and Lowden violated his

rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by refusing to allow
Jack
{Id.}
and

to

contact

Finally,
Lowden

unnecessary
(Id.}

his

before

they

interrogated

him.

in Claim Four, Jack alleges that Dikeman, Rima,

violated
use

attorney

of

At this stage,

his
force,

rights
which

by

subjecting

resulted

in

a

him
back

to

an

injury.

the Court cannot conclude that those four

than one suit." Jackson v. Olsen, No. 3:09CV43, 2010 WL 724023,
at *8 (E.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2010}
(quoting Canada v. Ray, No.
7:08cv00219, 2009 WL 2448557, at *2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 10, 2009)}.
Additionally, through the PLRA, Congress sought to ensure
"that the flood of nonmeritorious [prisoner] claims does not
submerge
and
effectively
preclude
consideration
of
the
allegations with merit."
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203
(2007) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)}.
The requirement that inmates must pay the full filing fee for
each separate suit, see 28 U.S.C. § 191S(b) (1), is one of the
PLRA' s key "reforms designed to filter out the bad claims and
facilitate consideration of the good."
Id. at 204.
To allow an
inmate, such as Jack,
to "package many lawsuits into one
complaint exempts him from such a cost, benefit analysis and
thus undercuts the PLRA." Canada, 2009 WL 2448557, at *3.
12

claims are
which

frivolous

relief

can

be

or that they fail
granted. 10

to state a

Accordingly,

the

claim upon
Court

will

continue to process the action with regard to Claims One through
Four against Defendants Dikeman, Rima, and Lowden.

V.

CONCLUSION

The action will proceed on Claims One, Two, Three, and Four
against Defendants Dikeman, Rima, and Lowden.

All other claims

and Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.
The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send a

copy of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Jack.
It is so ORDERED.

/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date: August
2017
1

-J12-

10

It is possible that the remaining Defendants (or fewer than
all of them) named in Claims One through Four could demonstrate
that one or more claims ought to be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b) (6).
Therefore, this preliminary determination will not
foreclose the ability of those Defendants from making such an
argument.
13