Villafana v. Clarke

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 3/30/18. (Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff Villafana).(jtho, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE

COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

JACQUES PAUL VILLAFANA,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.

V.

HAROLD W.

3:17CV512

CLARKE,

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jacques Paul Villafana,

and ^

a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se

forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.^

The

matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§

1915(e)(2)

Court

will

and

dismiss

1915A.
the

For

the

reasons

set

action

for

failure

to

forth
state

below,
a

claim

the
for

relief and as legally frivolous.

I.

Pursuant

to the

STANDARD OF

REVIEW

Prison Litigation Reform Act

Court must dismiss any action filed by a

("PLRA")

prisoner if

the Court

^ 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.

this

determines

a

claim

the

action

which

on

§ 1915(e)(2);

(1)

relief

s^'

includes

claims

theory,"

or

based

where
Yates,

second standard

"A

R.

v.
is

Civ.

motion

sufficiency

contests

a

the

P.

the

Arthur R.

Miller,

In considering a

"fails

granted."

"factual

The

417,

U.S.

standard

for

standard

meritless
are

(E.D.

327
a

state

U.S.C.

first

427

319,

to

28

contentions

Supp.

490

familiar

(2)

indisputably

809 F.

legal
clearly

Va.

1992)

(1989)).

The

motion

to

dismiss

12(b)(6).

dismiss

under

the

Rule

12(b)(6)

importantly,

facts,

applicability of defenses."

952

be

or

1915A.

"an

complaint;

surrounding

980 F.2d 943,

§

Williams,

to

of

may

upon

claims

(quoting Neitzke

frivolous"

U.S.C.

Clay v.

baseless."

under Fed.

28

"is

it

does

the merits of

a

tests

not

(4th Cir.

1992)

resolve

claim,

Republican Party of N.C.

the

or

v.

the

Martin,

(citing 5A Charles A. Wright &

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356

(1990)).

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

Inc. v.

see also Martin,

only

to

factual

considering

a

motion

identifying

pleadings

light

most

Matkari,

980

to

that,

7 F.3d 1130,

F.2d at

allegations,
dismiss

because

favorable

952.

however,

can

choose

they

are

to

the

1134

(4th

This principle
and
to

no

"a

court

begin

more

by

than

conclusions,

are

Ashcroft V.

The

not

Iqbal,

Federal

entitled

556 U.S.

Rules

to

662,

of

the

679

Civil

assumption

of

truth."

(2009).

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.

in order
.

41,

47

Corp.

with

complaints

"formulaic

Id.

(1957)).

v.

Twombly,

containing
of

level,"

"to

id.

raise

a

570.

pleads

(citation

reasonable

Corp. ,

550

U.S.

at

to

facial
that

that

misconduct alleged."

U.S.

544,

555

satisfy
and

of

must

Iqbal,

this

a

cause

of

elements of

[his or]

& Co. ,

F.3d

324

relief

above

stating

the

a

or

allows

the

the

court

defendant

is

the

action."

that

at

678

in

order

765

(4th

sufficient
Bass v.

Cir.

Id.

to

draw

the

for

the

(citing Bell Atl.

to

E.I.

2003)

is

plaintiff

liable

556 U.S.

facts

a

speculative

claim

plausibility when

her claim."

761,

355

standard

conclusions"

Therefore,

556) .

"allege

(2007)

Gibson,

for

a

complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a

plaintiff

fair

rather than merely "conceivable."

content

inference

defendant

a plaintiff must allege facts

omitted),

"A claim has
factual

"labels

elements

right

550

cannot

Instead,

"plausible on its face,"
at

only

the

(citations omitted).

sufficient

the

(quoting Conley v.

Plaintiffs

recitation

'give

claim is and the grounds upon which i t

(second alteration in original)
U.S.

to

claim

claim,

state

all

or

the

the

DuPont de Nemours

(citing

Dickson

v.

Microsoft

Corp.,

United States,

while

complaints,
it

F.3d

193,

289 F.3d 270,

Lastly,

1978),

309

the

Gordon
does

v.

not

213

281

act

as

Cir.

(4th Cir.

Court

Leeke,

(4th

the

lodice

v.

2002)).

liberally

574

2002);

F.2d

construes

1147,

inmate's

1151

pro

(4th

advocate,

sua

se

Cir.

sponte

developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed
to

clearly

Carroll,

raise

107

concurring);
(4th Cir.

on

face

241,

F.3d

the

243

Beaudett

v.

of

his

(4th

City of

complaint.
Cir.

See

1997)

Hampton,

775

Brock

(Luttig,

F.2d

1274,

v.
J.,

1278

1985).

II.

SUMMARY

OF ALLEGATIONS

AND

CLAIMS

By Memorandum Order entered on January 26,
directed

Villafana

to

file

a

particularized

2018,

the Court

complaint

because

the allegations in his original complaint failed to provide each

defendant
which

with

his

Twombly,

or

fair
her

550 U.S.

U.S.

41,

47

has

filed

a

notice

of

liability
544,

(1957));

555

the

rests.

(2007)

(Mem.

facts

and

See

legal

Bell

Atl.

(quoting Conley v.

Order

1-2,

Particularized Complaint.

ECF

No.

basis

Gibson,

21.)

(ECF No.

Corp.

upon
v.
355

Villafana

22.)

In his

Particularized Complaint, Villafana states the following:^
1.

medical
of

Jacques

records

Veterans

disability

Paul

were

Affairs

claim

Villafana

sent

with

(Mr.

to him from

in

2016,

the

Villafana's)

the Department

after

Department

he

filed

of

a

Veteran

^ The Court corrects the spacing and capitalization in the
quotations from Villafana's Particularized Complaint.
4

Affairs.
Upon
receiving
the
medical
records,
Lawrenceville Correctional Center's mail room opened
and

searched

Mr.

Villafana's

medical

records

without

authorization.

2.

So,

on

October

14th,

2016,

Mr.

Villafana

wrote to the Defendant (the Director of the Department
of
Corrections)
informing
him
that
the
Virginia
Department
of
Corrections
Operating
Procedure
803.1(D), violated Mr. Villafana's privacy rights.
3.
In his letter, Mr. Villafana also informed
the Defendant that Operating Procedure 803.1(D), which
governs
offender
correspondences,
classifies
correspondences from the Department of Veteran Affairs
— which is a federal legislative office — as "special
purpose correspondence," and is not given the privacy
of legal mail.
4.

Mr.

Villafana

went

on

to

inform

the

Defendant
that
he
had
the
sole
authority
under
Virginia Code § 53.1-53 to prescribe reasonable rules
regarding prisoner correspondences, and requested that
an amendment to Operating Procedure 8 03.1(D) be made,
which

would

alleviate

Mr.

Villafana

of

the

harm

he

suffered and any potential harm in the future.
5.
In response to Mr. Villafana's letter, Ms.
Sherida
Davis-Brown
(Correspondence
Unit
Manager)
responded on November 17th,
2016 and informed Mr.
Villafana that he had to utilize Operating Procedure
866.1: Offender Grievance Procedure, i f the issue was
s t i l l a concern; and, the issue had been shared with

appropriate staff for review and consideration.
6.
Mr. Villafana missed the filing deadline to
initiate a grievance on the matter above, and was
precluded from filing a grievance.
Then, on March
20th,

2017,

personnel,

Mr.

medical

Villafana

and

received

dental

additional

records.

Mr.

Villafana's records were once again opened without
authorization and searched outside of his presence.
7.

So,

Mr.

Villafana

filed

an

informal

complaint
in
accordance
with
Operating
Procedure
866.1, and exhausted all of his remedies through the
grievance process.
Mr. Villafana's grievance was
denied because his correspondences from the Department
of
Veterans
Affairs
were
not
given
the
privacy
protections under Operating Procedure 803.1(D).

(Part.

Compl.

1-3.)

Villafana brings the following claims for

relief based upon the above allegations:

Claim One:

Defendant

Clarke

violated

Villafana's

Fourth

Amendment right "to be secured in his papers
against unreasonable searches."
(Id. at 3.)
Claim Two:

Defendant Clarke violated Villafana's "right
to privacy [which] is also protected under
38 U.S.C. § 5701, 5705, 7332.
.
.
, which
governs veterans'
benefits
.
.
.
and

documents.

(Id.)^

The Court believes that Villafana intends to bring a third claim
against Defendant Clarke,

intends to argue.

but i t is very unclear what Villafana

At best, Villafana argues:

Claim Three:

"[W]hen Mr.
.

of

Villafana informed the Defendant
the

harm

he

suffered

under

under

[Virginia
Department
of
Corrections
("VDOC")]
Operating
Procedure
803.1(D)
(para.
2) ,
the Defendant refused to take
corrective
steps
.
.
.
and
acted
with
deliberate
indifference
despite
his
knowledge of substantial
risk of serious

harm."

( ^ at 4 .)

Villafana requests injunctive relief and monetary damages.

III.

A.

No Personal

ANALYSIS

Involvement of Defendant Clarke

In order to state a

viable claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983,

a

plaintiff must allege that 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,

^

In

Defendant

the

following

Clarke violated

paragraph,
"Title

38

of

See

Dowe

145 F.3d 653,

Villafana
the

v.

Total

658

restates

United States

(4th

that
Code."

(Part Compl. 3-4.) The Court combines this allegation with Claim
Two, which states a violation of the same code provision.

Cir. 1998)

(citing 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983).

"[A]

that each Government-official defendant,
own

individual

Ashcroft V.

plaintiff

Iqbal,

must

official

Cir.

Clarke

rights."

United

States.

At

Defendant Clarke

was

a

most,

whether

Defendant

indicates

that

does

the

not

show

550

the

Villafana

that

concerns

Clarke

received

928

Defendant

of

laws

that

however,

Unit

the

he

his

of

wrote

the
to

that opening his mail

these

Correspondence

of

deprivation

indicates

the

926,

F.2d

right conferred by the

the

"that

deprivation

allege

his privacy rights;

the

Constitution."

Accordingly,

Gibbs,

in

to express his

violation of

(2009) .

in

v.

involved

or a

the

affirmatively

personally
Vinnedge

personally

constitutional rights

676

that

Villafana

through the official's

violated

662,

facts

acted

1977) .

was

has

556 U.S.

allege

charged

plaintiff['s]
(4th

actions,

plaintiff must plead

it

letters.

Manager

is unclear
Villafana

responded

to

Villafana that he was required to use the grievance procedure to

express
Compl.

his
2.)

concerns
While

an

over

the

administrators may establish a

of

his

grievances

inmate's

handling

or

letters

basis

for

§ 1983

mail.
to

(Part
prison

liability,

the

plaintiff must allege facts that suggest that the communication,

in

its

content

official

and

sufficient

manner
notice

constitutional violation.
(7th Cir.

1996).

of

Cf.

transmission,
to

alert

Vance v.

him

Peters,

Villafana must demonstrate

gave

the

or

her

prison
of

97 F.3d 987,

a

993

that because of the

purported grievances, Defendant Clarke "knew of a constitutional

deprivation and approved it,
remedy it,

turned a blind eye to it,

or in some way personally participated."

(citing Gentry v.

Duckworth,

Villafana provides
Defendant

no

65 F.3d 555,

facts

Clarke was

561

failed to
Id.

(7th Cir.

at 994

1995)).

that would plausibly indicate

that

personally involved in the deprivation of

Villafana's rights.
To

is

the

liable

also

Clarke's

that

because

fails

Villafana

extent

to

state

fails
or

of

the

a
a

to

Villafana

policy
claim

that

for

demonstrate

VDOC

claims

he

has

relief.

that

violated

that

created,
As

any

Defendant

Villafana's

Villafana

discussed

policy

of

Clarke

below,

Defendant

constitutional

or

other statutorily-created rights.
B.

Fourth Amendment Rights

In

Claim

One,

Villafana

argues

that

Defendant

Clarke

violated his Fourth Amendment right to be "secured in his papers

against

unreasonable

employees

(Part

opened

Compl.

3.)

searches,"

his

medical

The

presumably,
records

Supreme

Court

when

without

has

mail

room

authorization.

explained

that

"the

Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does

not apply within the confines of the prison cell."
Palmer,

468

U.S.

517,

526

(1984)

(explaining

Hudson v.
that

"the

recognition of privacy rights for prisoners in their individual
cells

simply

cannot

be

reconciled

8

with

the

concept

of

incarceration

and

institutions").
are

not

Cir.

needs

Similarly,

violated

officials.

the

when

and

mail

(citations

3:10CV870,

2011

WL

(citations

omitted)

is

inspected
Kelton,

omitted);

4102226,

at

*3

("Prisoners

2008

("Prison

rights

WL

4657279,

officials

by

do

inspecting

required

to

have

(citing

Wolff

not

the

no

Villafana

fails

Defendant

Clarke

violated

Villafana's

mail

containing

mail room.

Accordingly,

to state a

C.
In

allege

Kan.

inmate's

legal

search

U.S.

facts

Sept.

539,

jail

103

(8th

No.

14,

2011)

expectation

Chester,
Oct.

No.

20,

08-

2008)

Fourth Amendment

mail,

to

418

by

Norris,

reasonable

Hall v.

an

cause

v.

Va.

(D.

inmate's

McDonnell,
to

*6

violate

probable

v.

penal

opened

791 F.2d 101,

(E.D.

have

at

and

Loiseau

of privacy to non-privileged mail.");
3235-SAC,

of

an inmate's Fourth Amendment rights

See United States v.

1986)

objectives

and

are

incoming

576-77

not

mail."

(1974))).

plausibly

suggest

that

Fourth

his

that

Amendment

rights

when

medical

records

was

opened

in

the

Claim One will be dismissed for failure

claim for r e l i e f and as frivolous.

Statutorily Created Rights
Claim

violated his

[§] § 5701, [^]

Two,

Villafana

"right to privacy

5705, [®]

7332. [®]

argues

.

.

.

.

.

that

Defendant

Clarke

protected under 38 U.S.C.

.

which governs veterans'

^ Section 57 01 explains that records pertaining to any claim
for veterans benefits "shall be confidential and privileged" and

benefits . . . "

and

3.)

U.S.C.

Title

38

the

disclosure

§

5701,

Confidentiality Statute,
of

or

veteran's

Cornish v.

benefit

Dudas,

statute, however,
officials

to

Perkins,

No.

2015) ;

even

if

Affairs

keep

F.

Supp.

certain

14-cv-386-PB,

private

Claims

Claims

Veteran's Affairs

records

2d 56,

70

("VA")

confidential.

(D.D.C.

to

See

2010).

This

does not impose any obligation on state prison

Cornish,

a

Compl.

Affairs

Veterans

(Part

imposes an obligation on the Secretary

and medical

715

documents.

the

the United States Department of

keep

1,

of

715

2015

F.

right

information
WL

Supp.
of

private.

3463424,

2d at

action

Confidentiality

at

69-70

existed

Statute,

See
*4

{D.

Gray
NH.

v.

June

(explaining that,

under
the

the

Veterans

Department

of

Veterans Affairs or its officers would be the proper defendant).
Villafana also fails to demonstrate that 38 U.S.C.

governs

the

disclosure

of

certain

governs

the

disclosure

of

these

Veterans Affairs.

^

Section

38 U.S.C.

5705

medical

records

§ 7332,

records

by

which

by

Department

the

of

§ 5701.

explains

that

"[r]ecords

and

documents

created by the Department as part of a medical quality-assurance
program
.
.
.
are confidential and privileged"
and places
restrictions
on
the
Department
of
Veterans
Affairs's
dissemination of these documents.

38 U.S.C.

§

5705.

® Chapter 73 pertains to the Veterans Health AdministrationOrganization
and
Functions.
Section
7332
governs
the
confidentiality of certain medical records of veterans relating
to
drug
abuse,
alcoholism
or
alcohol
abuse,
and
certain
diseases, and again places restrictions on the Veterans Health
Administration's
§

dissemination

of

7332.

10

such

records.

38

U.S.C.

Veteran's

relief

Health Administration,

against

Accordingly,
38

U.S.C.

for

D.

5701,

to

5704,

state a

or 7332.

cognizable

28

claim

U.S.C.

§

for

733 2."'

claim for relief under

Claim Two will be dismissed

r e l i e f and as

frivolous.

Violation of Operating Procedure

informed

the

[Virginia

Villafana argues

Defendant

...

Department

Procedure

803.1(D)

corrective

steps

despite

his

(Part.

Compl.

argue

.

.

.

knowledge
4.)

here.

under

constitutional

of

(para.

of

of

that

the

harm

Corrections

2),

the

"when Mr.
he

suffered

{"VDOC")]

Defendant

substantial

risk

of

under

Operating

refused

and acted with deliberate
a

Villafana

to

take

indifference

serious

harm."

It is unclear what exactly Villafana intends
As

viable claim under §
acting

a

See

to state a

claim for

In Claim Three,

to

Clarke.

Villafana fails

§§

failure

Defendant

states

color
right

discussed previously,
1983,
of
or

order

Villafana must allege

state
of

in

a

law

deprived

right

conferred

him
by

to

state

that a
or
a

person

her
law

a

of
of

a
the

^ Moreover, even if Defendant Clarke was somehow a proper
Defendant, which he is not, the Department of Veterans Affairs's
confidentiality statute and Section 7332, "do[] not establish a
cause of action for the improper disclosure of medical records."
Williams v. U.S. Government, CV. No. 12-00375-HG-KSC, 2013 WL
3288306, at *6 (D. Hi. June 28, 2013) (citation omitted); Morris
V. Nicholson, No. 1:05-0041, 2007 WL 2905346, at *3 (M.D. Tenn.

Sept. 26,
individual

2007)
(concluding no
harmed by 28 U.S.C.

Shinseki,

No.

Dec.

2010)

16,

lO-cv-02596-MSK-CBS,

(citation omitted)

of action under 28 U.S.C.

§ 7332).

11

private right of
§§ 5701,
7332);
2010 WL 5246572,

action for
Jackson v.
(D.

Colo.

(concluding no private

*1

cause

United States.

See Dowe,

145

F.3d at

65.

Villafana

fails

to

allege a violation of federal or constitutional law.
To the extent

that Villafana argues

that

either Defendant

Clarke or some subordinate failed to follow the VDOC's Operating
Procedure when he or she opened his mail
Veterans

Affairs,

he

See Versatile v.

(E.D.
the

Va.

Oct.

failure

state a

is

not

Johnson,

27,

"to

No.

2011)

follow

entitled

to

3:09CV120,

(citations

proper

VDOC

from the Department of
relief

intends

to

argue

omitted)

VDOC

.

.

.

Operating

somehow violates his constitutional rights,

state

claim

Clarke's

to

substantial
language

mail

risk

fails

from

of

to

Veterans

Affairs

De'Lonta

v.

Villafana

VDOC

the

indifference

for

an

explain,
opening

Angelone,

omitted)

330

of

the

Court

mail

Eighth

F.3d

(internal

630,

that

his

to

Defendant

from

quotation

Affairs,

4.)

claim.

cannot
the

to

knowledge

(4th

marks

of

This

However,

fathom,

how

Department

Amendment.
634

803.1

Compl.

Eighth Amendment

his

fails

he fails to

Veterans

(Part.

and this

that

Procedure

Procedure

despite

harm."

of

violated

argues

Operating

Department

serious

that

institution's

(citations

of

"deliberate

tracks

Villafana
the

relief.

application

Villafana's
amounts

for

at *29

Even assuming that

803.1(D)
a

1983.

(explaining

procedure

that

§

2011 WL 5119259,

claim of constitutional dimension").

Villafana

under

of

See,

e.g. ,

Cir.

2003)

omitted)

(explaining that to satisfy the objective portion of the Eighth

12

Amendment

"a

physical

prisoner

or

must

emotional

conditions");

cf.

42

allege

injury

a

serious

resulting

U.S.C.

§

1997e(e)

or

from

significant

the

challenged

{requiring

a

"prior

showing of physical injury" to recover damages).
To the extent that Villafana claims that the VDOC Operating
Procedure violates some unidentified privacy right,

identify

how

Constitution

fails

to

he

has

or

state

laws

a

been
of

claim

deprived

the

for

rights

United

fails

guaranteed

States.

relief.

he

Thus,

Accordingly,

by

to

the

Villafana

Claim

Three

will be dismissed.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Villafana fails to state a claim
for

relief

frivolous.
be

against

Defendant

Accordingly,

dismissed.

disposition

of

The

the

Clarke

and

his

claims

are

Villafana's claims and the action will

Clerk

action

will

for

be

the

directed

purposes

to

note

the

of

28

U.S.C.

the

Memorandum

§ 1915(g) .

The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

Order to Villafana.
It

is

so ORDERED.

I±L
Robert E. Payne
Senior united States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia

13