Ford v. Northam
| Decision Date | 31 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 7:22-cv-00122 |
| Parties | RAYMOND A. FORD, JR., Plaintiff, v. RALPH NORTHAM, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Plaintiff Raymond A. Ford, Jr., a prisoner in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”) and proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He paid the full filing fee. His complaint names ten defendants: the former and current governors of Virginia (Ralph Northam and Glen Youngkin respectively), VDOC's Director Harold Clarke, Kemsy Bowles (the Warden of Coffeewood Correctional Center (“CWCC”)), Regional Ombudsman S. Moe-Willis, and five defendants who work at CWCC, where Ford was housed at all relevant times: Kimberly Souter, S. Ruiz, C. Walker Ashlyn Hartsook (sometimes spelled in defendants' filing as Hartsbrook or Hartsock), and Nick Meyers.[1]
Ford's complaint is lengthy, consisting of 115 hand-written pages. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) In an introduction, Ford alleges “infringement upon, violation, and denial of various rights protected by the United States and Virginia Constitutions, and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).” (Id. at 7.)[2] His complaint also includes other claims, as discussed herein.
(Compl. 7.)
Ford further asserts that he has “numerous reasons for objecting” to the vaccine and does not want it. (Id.) These include that he contracted COVID-19 in late 2020, and he has “natural immunity,” as well as his concerns about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness. He suggests that “by mandating and infecting Plaintiff, other VDOC prisoners and staff with this BWMD, defendants are engaged in a practice of genocide, as well as state-sponsored Munchausen Syndrome by proxy” because extensive use of vaccines is prolonging COVID infections and sickness. (Id. at 8.) Relatedly, he contends that when the vaccine was released, the VDOC policies implementing the “new normal” were “acts of both [s]ecession and treason.” (Id.)
Pending before the court is a joint motion to dismiss filed by all defendants (Dkt. No. 17), to which Ford has responded (Dkt. No. 24). The motion seeks dismissal of all claims against all defendants on various grounds. Ford also has filed a motion to expand the record. For the reasons set forth herein, the court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss, although it will grant Ford leave to amend-should he choose to do so-in order to provide further factual detail in support of one of his retaliation claims and his access-to-courts claim. The court will deny as moot Ford's motion to expand the record.
After setting forth his basic theory of the case in the complaint's “introduction,” Ford devotes many pages to explaining what a coronavirus is, why both COVID-19 and its vaccines are WMDs or BWMDs, setting forth a history of the pandemic and the U.S. response to it, including an alleged “cover-up” related to the release of the COVID-19 virus in China, explaining various parts of the vaccine, and describing how and why it has been “weaponized.” (Id. at 10-41.) He also includes a section explaining the history of U.S. “Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy” and how the vaccines represent “state-sponsored Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.” (Id. at 41-46.) He then discusses why he believes natural immunity is superior in strength to the vaccines, the “questionable” efficacy of COVID vaccines, how the booster shots affect antibody levels, and how the vaccines are contributing to the infection rate. (Id. at 47-53.)
Finally, beginning on page 54 of his complaint, Ford begins to discuss COVID-19-related events that occurred within VDOC or at CWCC. He explains that that he had worked at the law library at CWCC since 2018, and he had worked hard to ensure that the law library remained a “COVID-free zone.” (Id. at 54.)
In “late 2020,” VDOC and CWCC officials “offered-with incentive for the first time-a ‘flu shot.'” (Id. at 55.) After other prisoners received this shot, and staff and prisoners mingled, Ford became infected with COVID-19. After his recovery, Ford was told by several doctors that he had “natural immunity to COVID-19,” and he then conducted “ an extensive research project” as to natural immunity. (Id.) From then until the filing of his complaint in March 2022, Ford did not test positive again for COVID, although “nearly all vaccinated prisoners around him have tested positive.” (Id.)
In December 2020, VDOC distributed a fact sheet about the COVID vaccine being made available to VDOC prisoners, and many prisoners agreed to be vaccinated, but Ford refused. In early 2021, defendant Hartsook became CWCC's new Institutional Program Manager. Ford alleges that she began implementing directives to implement a “new normal,” which were passed down from Governor Northam, VDOC Director Clarke, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the CDC, the Virginia Department of Health, and others. (Id. at 58.) The “new normal,” which would begin in mid-July 2021, would allow persons who had been fully vaccinated to attend programs, school, the law library, or any other services offered at CWCC, if they lived in a dorm in which 75% of the people were vaccinated, although the requirement did not apply to “re-entry programs” run by the state. (Id.)
Ford raised his concerns over the “new normal” policies to numerous people. He explained to Hartsook and others, and subsequently in numerous informal complaints and grievances, that vaccinated and unvaccinated prisoners live together at CWCC in dorm-style rooms, share restrooms and other equipment, and are moved between buildings and even prisons, and that half of the CWCC staff was not vaccinated. In light of these facts, the “new normal” principles made “no sense.” (Id. at 59.) He further explained that the principles were “untimely” because Virginia's state of emergency ended on June 30, 2021, that denying unvaccinated prisoners access to programs was discriminatory, punitive, and a violation of constitutional protections, and that because he and “everyone” at CWCC already had COVID, they all had natural immunity, so the vaccinations were unnecessary. (Id.) Moreover, Ford conveyed that no physician or other medical staff had ever recommended that he get a COVID vaccine. (Id.)
Nonetheless, because he refused to receive the COVID vaccine, he began to be denied access to the law library, religious services, and programs. (Id. at 61.) According to Ford, other “new normal” measures included a decrease in law library hours, the library being closed at night, a reduction in religious programs from twice weekly to once monthly, educational and vocational programs being cut down, and visitation being decreased.[5] (Id. at 62-63.)
He also complains that defendants were still enforcing policies and procedures, at the time of the complaint, that make it more likely that COVID will spread, including refusing to turn on the ventilation system, refusing to give more than 50 minutes of fresh air or outdoor recreation daily, and insisting that prisoners wear masks in certain circumstances. (Id. at 83, 85- 86.)
As noted, Ford filed numerous complaints and grievances about the “new normal” policies and his other claims raised in this lawsuit. He claims that although all of his grievances were timely, some were improperly denied as untimely and all were ultimately rejected, despite their merit. (See Id. at 5, 63-83.) He also alleges that, apparently as a result of both his refusal to be vaccinated and his filing of grievances and complaints, defendants have retaliated against him.
Ford's complaint lists sixteen claims, which are summarized as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial