Justice v. West Virginia Department of Corrections
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that Plaintiff's 8 Objection is OVERRULED; the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED; Plaintiff's 2 Complaint is DISMISSED; and the 9 Motion for Continuance is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/20/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew)
Case 2:19-cv-00567 Document 10 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 38
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
HOWARD LEE JUSTICE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00567
WEST VIRGINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Howard Lee Justice, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Justice”)
Complaint, (ECF No. 2), and Motion for Continuance, (ECF No. 9). By standing order entered
on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on September 19, 2019, (ECF No. 3), this action was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings
and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on
March 8, 2022, recommending this Court find that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2)(B). (ECF No. 7.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommends that this Court
find that Plaintiff’s request for restoration of good conduct time (“GCT”) must be addressed in a
petition for writ of habeas corpus only after exhausting all available remedies in state court because
such relief would shorten Plaintiff’s term of imprisonment. Further, Magistrate Judge Tinsley
recommends that this Court find that Plaintiff’s request for monetary damages is barred under the
United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) insofar as he
Case 2:19-cv-00567 Document 10 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 39
has not yet established that his underlying conviction no longer stands, and because he cannot use
42 U.S.C. § 1983 to invalidate his disciplinary conviction.
On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document captioned “Proposed Findings,” which
purports to be a responsive memorandum to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R. Accordingly, the
Court will construe Plaintiff’s “Proposed Findings” as a timely objection to Magistrate Judge
Tinsley’s PF&R. (ECF No. 8.) However, for the reasons discussed more fully herein, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 7), DISMISSES Plaintiff’s
Complaint, (ECF No. 2), and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance, (ECF No. 9).
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Huttonsville Correctional Center
(“HCC”), he suffered a seizure and bit an unidentified correctional officer during the course
thereof. (ECF No. 2 at 5.) Following his seizure, Plaintiff claims that he was transported to
Charleston Area Medical Center (“CAMC”) to be treated for injuries, and was thereafter
transferred to the custody of Mt. Olive Correctional Center (“MOCC”). (Id.) Plaintiff alleges
that due to this incident, which he alleges occurred due to a medical condition out of his control,
he had 286 days of good conduct time (“GCT”) taken away from him. (Id.) In his Complaint,
Plaintiff requests that this Court grant him the 286 days of GCT he lost due to the incident, as well
as $46,000 for the lost GCT. (Id.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation
to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file
2
Case 2:19-cv-00567 Document 10 Filed 07/20/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 40
timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a party’s right to appeal this Court’s
Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct
the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge’s PF&R—which he appears to have
misunderstood as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)—is
untimely. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff points out that he is no longer serving his sentence during
which his GCT was taken from him.1 (Id.) Plaintiff does, however, request monetary damages
for the loss of GCT resulting from him biting the unidentified correctional officer at HCC. (Id.)
Plaintiff’s objections, however, do not point the Court to any error in the magistrate judge’s
PF&R regarding his Complaint. For instance, the magistrate judge concluded that, because
Plaintiff’s request for GCT would shorten his term of imprisonment, Plaintiff cannot seek
restoration of his GCT through a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but must address such claims
through a habeas corpus petition and must first address that claim in the state courts. (ECF No. 7
at 4) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)). Plaintiff did not address this conclusion
in his objection.
Further, the magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages is
barred pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, which held
1
Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Stevens Correctional Center (“SCC”), a facility operated by the McDowell County
Commission that houses minimum to medium class inmates serving state sentences.
3
Case 2:19-cv-00567 Document 10 Filed 07/20/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 41
that in order to recover damages for an unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other
harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a
plaintiff suing under Section 1983 must prove that the allegedly invalid conviction or sentence
must have been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 512 U.S. 477, 786–87 (1994). Further, the magistrate judge
found that Heck’s limitations also apply to claims involving prison disciplinary sanctions. (ECF
No. 7 at 5) (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.
641, 647–48 (1997)). Thus, because Plaintiff’s claim, if successful, could change the length of
his confinement through the restoration of forfeited GCT, the magistrate judge concluded that his
claim for monetary damages is barred under Heck. (Id.) Just as Plaintiff failed to address the
magistrate judge’s first finding, he also failed to address, in any way, the magistrate judge’s finding
regarding his claim for monetary damages.
Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s objection is general and conclusory, and does not direct
the Court to any particular error in the magistrate judge’s PF&R, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Therefore, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection, (ECF No. 8), ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 7), and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 2), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Continuance on April 4, 2022, nearly two weeks after filing
his response to the magistrate judge’s PF&R. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance
does not specify a duration for the continuance sought, but nevertheless asserts that he has made
4
Case 2:19-cv-00567 Document 10 Filed 07/20/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 42
attempts to utilize the law library at SCC, but that it is currently out of order. (Id.) Plaintiff
claims that his inability to access the law library at SCC is prohibiting him from properly preparing
for his case. (Id.) However, Plaintiff has had ample time to request a continuance in this case.
Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on September 5, 2019. The magistrate judge filed his PF&R
on March 8, 2022. Rather than requesting a continuance following the magistrate judge’s entry
of the PF&R, Plaintiff filed a response to the PF&R, which has been addressed above.
Accordingly, because Plaintiff was afforded ample time to request a continuance, but did not until
April 4, 2022, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to warrant a continuance in this case.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance, (ECF No. 9).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
5
July 20, 2022
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?