Pendleton v. WV Division of Corrections et al

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice plaintiff's 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying plaintiff's 47 MOTION for Expedited Relief, 54 MOTION for Expedited and Injunctive Relief, and 57 MOTION for Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/19/2016. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record; magistrate judge) (tmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON

RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:15-01903

WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF
CORRECTIONS, KELLI HINTE,
SHERRIE SNYDER, CHERYL CHANDLER,
LISA BOGGS, MICHAEL SHUMATE, and
PATRICK JANISZEWSKI,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the court are the following motions:
the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44), the
plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Relief (ECF No. 47), the
plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited and Injunctive Relief (ECF No.
54), and the plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief and
Declaratory Judgment (ECF No. 57).

On March 31, 2016, the court entered an order denying
the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s
complaint plausibly states an equal protection claim.

This

matter has been re-referred to the magistrate judge for further
proceedings consistent with that opinion, and for the entry of a
pretrial schedule.
1

In their motion to dismiss, the defendants
alternatively requested summary judgment, arguing that the
“basic prison records” submitted by the plaintiff in support of
his complaint and various motions demonstrated that he was not
entitled to relief.

The court concluded that the summary

judgment motion had not been sufficiently developed, and denied
that motion without prejudice.

See ECF No. 67 at 11-12.

The

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44) essentially
seeks summary judgment based on the same materials, arguing that
the documents referenced are sufficient to show the plaintiff is
entitled to judgment in his favor.

This motion was filed in

response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, prior to the
filing of an answer in this matter.

As a result, the defendants

have not yet responded as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations in the Amended Complaint.

Accordingly, the court

concludes that a ruling on the plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment would be premature.

In each of the remaining pending motions, the
plaintiff seeks immediate relief from his assignment to
administrative segregation, in the form of what is variously
termed expedited relief (ECF No. 47), expedited and injunctive
relief (ECF No. 54), or injunctive relief and declaratory
judgment (ECF No. 57).

The court construes all of these motions

to be seeking preliminary or permanent injunctive relief.
2

In

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme
Court articulated what must be shown to obtain a preliminary
injunction, stating that the plaintiff must establish “(1) that
he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
(3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that
an injunction is in the public interest.” 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
In 2009, the Fourth Circuit discussed the standard set out in
Winter in The Real Truth About Obama, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir.
2009), noting:
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy
afforded prior to trial at the discretion of the district
court that grants relief pendente lite of the type
available after the trial.
Because a preliminary
injunction affords, on a temporary basis, the relief
that can be granted permanently after trial, the party
seeking the preliminary injunction must demonstrate by
“a clear showing” that, among other things, it is likely
to succeed on the merits at trial.
575 F.3d 345-46.1

The Real Truth decision also emphasizes that “the
Winter requirement that the plaintiff clearly demonstrate that
[he] will likely succeed on the merits is far stricter than the
[Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville v. Seilig

1

Although the original decision in Real Truth was vacated by the
Supreme Court for further consideration in light of the decision
in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310
(2010), the Fourth Circuit reissued its opinion on Parts I and
II of its earlier opinion in the case. See 575 F.3d at 345-347.
3

Manufacturing Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977)] requirement
that the plaintiff demonstrate only a grave or serious question
for litigation.”

Id. at 346-47.

Real Truth further

distinguishes the Winter standard from the old Blackwelder
standard because it no longer requires the court to balance the
irreparable harm to the respective parties, but rather requires
the plaintiff to make a clear showing that he is likely to be
irreparably harmed, and that the court must pay particular
attention to the public consequences in employing the
extraordinary remedy of an injunction.

The Fourth Circuit again

emphasized that all four factors must be met in order to justify
this extraordinary relief, stating that the standard articulated
in Winter would henceforth govern the issuance of preliminary
injunctions in all federal courts.

Id. at 347.

The plaintiffs’ submissions, taken together, do not
make a “clear showing” that the plaintiff is likely to succeed
on the merits of his equal protection claim.

While the

plaintiff repeatedly identifies certain Caucasian inmates he
believes to be similarly situated to himself for purposes of the
defendants’ administrative segregation determinations and who he
argues were treated differently from black inmates based on
race, the plaintiff has not yet addressed the defendants’
arguments that other factors led to the segregation
determinations at issues.

Based on the materials before the
4

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 15-14025

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY LONG TERM DISABILITY PROGRAM,
an Employee Welfare Benefits to conclude that the plaintiff is
court, it would be impossible Plan,
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON,
a Massachusetts Corporation, and
likely to be able to show that the defendants used the
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive,
impermissible factor of race to make those determinations.
Defendants.
While the court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations,
ORDER AND NOTICE
accepted as true, were sufficient to survive a motion to
Pursuant to L.R. Civ. P. 16.1, it is ORDERED that the
followingthe plaintiff has not yet proven those allegations to
dismiss, dates are hereby fixed as the time by or on which
certain events must occur:
the extent necessary to support injunctive relief under the
01/28/2016
Motions under F.R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with
supporting briefs, memoranda, affidavits, or other
stringent standard contemplated by Winter and Real Truth.
such matter in support thereof. (All motions
unsupported by memoranda will be denied without
prejudice pursuant to L.R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a)).
For the reasons stated, the court ORDERS that the
02/08/2016
Last day for Rule 26(f) meeting.
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be, and it hereby is,
02/15/2016
Last day to file Report of Parties= Planning
L.R. Civ. P. 16.1.
denied without Meeting. SeeThe court further ORDERS that the
prejudice.
02/22/2016
Scheduling conference at 4:30 p.m. at the Robert
plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Relief, Motion for Expedited C.
Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before
and Injunctive the undersigned, unless Injunctive Relief and
Relief, and Motion for canceled. Lead counsel
directed to appear.
Declaratory Judgment be, and they hereby are, denied.
02/29/2016
Entry of scheduling order.
03/08/2016
Last day to serve F.R. Civ. P 26(a)(1) disclosures.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this order
The Clerk is requested to transmit this Order and
to the plaintiff, all counsel of record, and the magistrate
Notice to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented
judge.
parties.
DATED:
DATED:

July 5, 2016
January19, 2016

John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

5