Belk v. Smith
| Decision Date | 26 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | 1:10CV724 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | JONATHAN DAYTON BELK, Plaintiff, v. LEWIS O. SMITH and LARRY JONES, Defendants. |
JONATHAN DAYTON BELK, Plaintiff,
v.
LEWIS O. SMITH and LARRY JONES, Defendants.
1:10CV724
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Filed: September 27, 2013
Dated: September 26, 2013
Plaintiff Jonathan Belk brings this pro se action against Defendants Lewis Smith and Larry Jones pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Mr. Smith moves to dismiss all claims against him for failing to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [Doc. # 15]. The Court sua sponte considers matters affecting jurisdiction and the sufficiency of Mr. Belk's allegations as they relate to Dr. Jones under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1
The Defendants are considered to have been sued in both their official and individual capacities. All claims for injunctive relief are dismissed as moot. All
Page 2
claims under the Eighth Amendment and all individual capacity statutory claims are dismissed for a failure to state a claim. All official capacity ADA claims unrelated to actual constitutional violations are dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity.
Parties are given 45 days to make additional filings as to the sufficiency of Mr. Belk's claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for irrational disability discrimination and denial of procedural due process. Mr. Belk's official capacity claims under the Rehabilitation Act may proceed. Mr. Belk's official capacity claims under the ADA may proceed to the extent that they arise from adequately pled constitutional violations.
The facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion. Mr. Belk, an individual with a prosthetic leg, filed this suit while an inmate in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Corrections. On or about April 8, 2010, Mr. Belk was transferred to the Albemarle Correctional Institution ("AG") near Badin, NC. Around this time, Defendant Larry Jones, M.D. performed a brief, three minute examination of Mr. Belk, which included one question: "can you stand for a hour." Doc. # 2 at 3. Mr. Belk then had restrictions placed on him "such as no standing for no more than a hour, no going up steps, can't pick no more than 10 lbs up." Doc. # 2 at 3. Mr. Belk claims that these were "bogus restrictions" that were placed on him because of his prosthetic leg, see Doc. # 2 at 2, that they had the purpose of making him "have to max out
Page 3
[his] sentence," Doc. # 2 at 3, and that they were imposed "without giving a complete examination," id.
Mr. Belk learned of these restrictions when he "put in for numerous jobs such as dorm janitor, kitchen, clotheshouse and labor pool." Doc. # 2 at 3. Performing these jobs would have reduced his prison term. Mr. Smith, however, did not permit Mr. Belk to perform these jobs because of the restrictions placed on him by Dr. Jones. Mr. Belk alleges that he was in fact capable of performing the jobs for which he applied, and that he had performed similar jobs during multiple prior periods of incarceration despite having the same handicap. See Doc. # 2 at 3.
Mr. Belk seeks an injunction restoring his ability to work and requiring Mr. Smith to "create jobs or alternative ways for person's with physical disabilities or Restrictions ways to work their sentences down to the min. like persons without disabilities." Doc. # 2 at 4. He also seeks punitive damages and $500,000 in compensatory damages. Id.
Mr. Belk's complaint does not specify whether the Defendants are sued in their official or individual capacities. A pro se plaintiff bringing a claim pursuant to Section 1983 need "not plead expressly the capacity in which he is suing a defendant[.]" Biggs v. Meadows, 66 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1995). When not specified, courts determine the capacity in which a defendant is sued by examining
Page 4
"the nature of the plaintiff's claims, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings[.]" Id. at 61. Mr. Belk's complaint indicates that he sued Mr. Smith and Dr. Jones in both their official and individual capacities.
As to the nature of Mr. Belk's claims, he alleges that "Lewis O. Smith and his staff" violated his rights. Doc. # 1 at 3 (emphasis added), indicating that his complaint was not solely directed at Mr. Smith as an individual, but also at the broader system he managed. As to the nature of the relief sought, Mr. Belk requests injunctive relief for himself and for all "person's with physical disabilities or restrictions," id. at 4, and though he does not specifically name a state agency as a defendant, he twice requests that the court "enter judgment declaring [that] the acts of defendants Lewis O. Smith, Larry Jones, and N.C. [D]ept. of [C]orrections" violated various constitutional provisions, Id. (emphasis added). As to the course of the proceedings, although Mr. Smith asserted no defense suggesting that he considered himself to have been sued in his official capacity, Dr. Jones did include in his Answer the assertion that he "is shielded by the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity from suit in his official capacity[.]" Doc. # 22, at 5. Viewed together, Mr. Belk's complaint and the course of the proceedings demonstrate that Mr. Belk intended to proceed against the Defendants in their official capacities.
The face of Mr. Belk's complaint demonstrates that Dr. Jones is also sued in his individual capacity. As to the nature of the claims, Mr. Belk alleges that Dr.
Page 5
Jones "has shown deliberate indifference by putting or placing false restrictions on plaintiff without giving a complete examination: 3 minutes and asking one question can you stand for a hour isn't a complete examination or physical[.]" Doc. # 2 at 3. This allegation focuses on Dr. Jones's personal action towards Mr. Belk, and does not "necessarily implicate an official policy or custom." Biggs, 66 F.3d at 61. As to the nature of the damages sought, Mr. Belk seeks punitive damages-a form of relief only available in individual capacity suits. As to the course of the proceedings, Dr. Jones included in his Answer the defense of qualified immunity-a a defense only applicable to individual capacity claims. Mr. Belk's suit is therefore construed as being against Dr. Jones in both his individual and official capacity.
The question of whether Mr. Smith is sued in his individual capacity is a closer call. However, although the allegations against Mr. Smith generally appear to relate to the system he managed, they do include one allegation not necessarily implicating an official policy or custom. See Doc. # 2, at 3 ("Lewis O. Smith, has shown deliberate indifference for failing to provide pla[i]ntiff with an alternative Resolution[.]"). Further, Mr. Belk's request for punitive damages again indicates he intended to sue the Defendants in their individual capacities. Finally, as to the course of the proceedings, Mr. Smith extensively addressed defenses such as qualified immunity that only apply to individual capacity suits. See Doc. # 16. These factors together indicate that Mr. Smith is sued in both his individual and official capacities, and Mr. Belk's suit is construed accordingly.
Page 6
Mr. Belk's claims for injunctive relief must be dismissed as moot. "[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). "Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases because their constitutional authority extends only to actual cases or controversies." Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983). "[A]s a general rule, a prisoner's transfer or release from a particular prison moots his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to his incarceration there." Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009). Mr. Belk was released on February 12, 2012. See Doc. #16, ex. 1 at 1; Doc. # 5. As such, he no longer has a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of his request for injunctive relief. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction over those claims, and they must be dismissed.
Some of Mr. Belk's remaining claims must be dismissed for a failure to state a claim. Although only Mr. Smith filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), courts are nevertheless to dismiss sua sponte those portions of a prisoner's complaint that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is
Page 7
plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. labal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff must articulate facts that "show a plausibility of entitlement to relief" (quotation marks and citations omitted)). A plaintiff must therefore plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, while a plaintiff need not plead facts that constitute a prima facie case, his "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, courts are to "construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff." Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, "liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where, as here, there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues." Id. "Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not, however, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial