Wilson v. Daniels

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 2/11/2015. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
DUSTIN C. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
IPM DANIELS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:14cv00289
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge

Dustin C. Wilson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Institutional Program Manager (“IPM”) Daniels.1 Having
reviewed Wilson’s complaint, I conclude that Wilson’s allegations fail to state a claim and,
therefore, will dismiss his complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Wilson alleges that while he was a protective custody inmate at River North Correctional
Center (“RNCC”), IPM Daniels denied his requests to allow protective custody inmates to
participate in the Technical Education Programs offered at RNCC. Wilson states that in denying
one of his requests, IPM Daniels stated that the classes were four hours long, required usage of
hands-on equipment, and that RNCC was not going to hold a class for just one person. In
response to another grievance, an unnamed person allegedly told Wilson that he could “sign off
protective custody and go to general population” if he wanted to participate in the Technical
Education Programs.
To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he has
been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this
deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v.

1

Wilson has also filed a motion to substitute defendant Daniels for the Warden of River North Correctional
Center under a theory of vicarious liability and without alleging any facts against the Warden. However, such an
amendment would be futile and, therefore, Wilson’s motion is denied. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009).

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Even liberally construing Wilson’s complaint, I conclude that
his allegations do not state a claim that is actionable under § 1983.2 See generally Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see also Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981) (no Eighth
Amendment right to classes); Women Prisoners of Dist. of Columbia Dep’t of Corr. v. Dist. of
Columbia, 93 F.3d 910, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (no constitutional right to work or educational
opportunities); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1987) (no due process right to
classes).

Accordingly, I will dismiss this case without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1).3
ENTER: This 11th day of February, 2015.

2

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any related state law claims Wilson may have,
pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
3

Wilson has also filed a “prohibitory injunction” and “motion for prohibitory injunction or motion for
injunction bond or injunction,” in which he asks the court, inter alia, to have him transferred to a different facility.
Since filing those pleadings, Wilson has now been transferred to Red Onion State Prison. The transfer or release of a
prisoner generally renders moot any claims for injunctive or declaratory relief relating to the former place of
confinement. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979); Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823
(4th Cir. 1991) (prisoner’s transfer rendered moot his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief). As Wilson has
been transferred, I conclude that his requests for injunctive relief are now moot.

2