Carter v. White
| Decision Date | 04 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 7:21-cv-00484 |
| Parties | CHARLES KENZELL CARTER, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN RICK WHITE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Plaintiff Charles Kenzell Carter, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a Wyoming inmate housed within the Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”) pursuant to an Interstate Corrections Compact contract between Virginia and Wyoming. On September 16, 2021, Carter filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the VDOC and fourteen VDOC employees (collectively, the VDOC Defendants),[1] asserting violations of his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as violations of state law. The VDOC Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss to which Carter has responded. ECF Nos. 16 and 21. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED as to Carter's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.
I. Background
Carter is incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison in Wise County Virginia. His complaint stems from four incidents that occurred at that facility in 2021. The court will summarize each incident and the corresponding federal claims in turn.
Carter alleges that Sgt. A. Bentley charged him with intentionally destroying state property (Disciplinary Offense 111A) on June 3, 2021. Compl., ECF No. 1, at 3. Carter claims that the disciplinary charge was false and that he was convicted of the charge and fined $15.00 without receiving due process. Id. at 4-14. In particular, Carter asserts that Lt. M.D. Mullins failed to properly investigate the charge; that Hearing Officer K.D. Ramey failed to provide requested evidence and improperly conducted the disciplinary hearing in Carter's absence; that Ramey and Hearing Officer J. Adams failed to provide correct appeal forms; and that Warden Rick White improperly denied his appeal. Id. Carter also claims that various defendants violated his right to due process by applying Virginia, rather than Wyoming, disciplinary rules and procedures. Id.
On June 3, 2021, Carter received an additional charge of throwing bodily fluids (Disciplinary Offense 124). Id. at 7. Carter claims that he was convicted of the charge and fined $10.00 without receiving due process. Id. Once again, Carter alleges that prison officials unlawfully applied Virginia disciplinary rules and procedures. Id. Carter also alleges that Ramey failed to give him an appeal packet in a timely manner and that White denied his appeal without acknowledging the alleged due process violations. Id. at 7-8. C. Meal Tray Issues
Carter alleges that K. Almarodle and unknown “Kitchen Inmate Workers” did not properly clean the trays that were used to serve his meals. Id. at 14. On the morning of July 4, 2021, Carter received his common fare tray and discovered a spider under his oatmeal.[2] Id. at 9. As a result, Carter “was forced to eat off a regular tray.” Id. He filed an informal complaint and a grievance regarding the incident, both of which were rejected by Almarodle, and his appeal was denied by Regional Administrator Carl Manis. Id. Carter claims that Almarodle and the unknown kitchen staff members violated his rights under the First Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 14.
D. Disciplinary Offense 100/198
On July 7, 2021, Carter received a disciplinary charge for “aiding and abetting to commit murder” (Disciplinary Offense 100/198). Id. at 10. Carter alleges that Lt. M.J. Williams “processed the charge” and that the subsequent conviction resulted in the “los[s] of all good time.” Id. at 10, 13. Carter also alleges that he was placed in long-term segregation as a result of “these unlawful disciplinary infractions” and that J. Beverly removed him from school. Id. at 11. Carter further alleges that he “know[s] that [Beverly] is just retaliating” against him for “exercising [his] constitutional and legal rights.” Id. Based on these allegations, Carter asserts violations of his rights under the First Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 11-19. II. Standard of Review
The VDOC Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff's allegations “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. While a complaint does not need “detailed factual allegations,” merely offering “labels and conclusions,” “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
Where, as here, a complaint was filed pro se, it must be construed liberally. King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, a pro se complaint “must still ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Sakyi v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 770 Fed.Appx. 113, 113 (4th Cir 2019) (quoting Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014)).
III. Discussion
Carter filed suit against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 imposes liability on any person who, under color of state law, deprives another person “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, “a plaintiff ‘must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.'” Loftus v. Bobzien, 848 F.3d 278, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Crosby v. City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634, 639 (4th Cir. 2011)). The plaintiff must also show “that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff['s] rights.” Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2017).
The court will begin by addressing Carter's claims for alleged violations of his right to due process. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. “To state a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must (1) identify a protected liberty or property interest and (2) demonstrate deprivation of that interest without due process of law.” Prieto v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 2015). A plaintiff who fails to establish the existence of a protected interest “cannot invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause.” Id. (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Experimental Holdings, Inc. v. Farris, 503 F.3d 514, 519 (6th Cir. 2007) () (citing Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 579 (1972)).
Carter asserts multiple due process violations related to his three disciplinary convictions. He specifically alleges that he was deprived of liberty interests without due process. See, e.g., Compl. at 6 (); id. at 13, 15 ().
In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), “the Supreme Court recognized that constitutional due process protections extend to prison disciplinary proceedings that could adversely impact an inmate's liberty interests-such as the loss of good time credits ....” Lennear v. Wilson, 937 F.3d 257, 268 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 555). The Supreme Court held that an inmate charged with a disciplinary violation implicating a protected liberty interest must receive: (1) advance written notice of the charges against him; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence unless doing so would be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; (3) a written statement describing the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action; and (4) a fair and impartial tribunal. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-71.
The procedural protections outlined in Wolff apply only when a disciplinary sanction implicates a constitutionally protected interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 483-84 (1995). A prison disciplinary action does not implicate a liberty interest requiring due process safeguards unless it inflicts “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” or “inevitably affect[s] the duration of his sentence.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 487; see also Landor v. Lamartiniere, 515 Fed.Appx. 257, 259 (5th Cir. 2013) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial