De'lonta v. Clarke

• Decision Date: 14 January 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 7:11-cv-00483
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
• Parties: OPHELIA AZRIEL DE'LONTA Plaintiff, v. HAROLD CLARKE, et al., Defendants.

OPHELIA AZRIEL DE'LONTAPlaintiff,

v.HAROLD CLARKE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 7:11-cv-00483

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

ENTER: January 14, 2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By: Hon. James C. Turk

Senior United States District Judge

This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant¹Sarah Pruitt's Motion for Summary Judgment.ECF No. 57.Plaintiff, a pre-operative transsexual² housed in the Virginia Department of Corrections("VDOC") prison system, alleges that Sarah Pruitt, a prison guard, sexually abused her.Pruitt asserts qualified immunity as grounds upon which summary judgment should be granted.For the reasons that follow, the CourtGRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion for Summary Judgment.

I.FACTS

In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must consider the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587(1986);see alsoMLC Auto.. LLC, v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 273(4th Cir.2008).³PlaintiffOphelia De'lonta("De'lonta" or "Plaintiff) was transferred to Buckingham Correctional Center ("BKCC") in April 2010, a facility for male inmates.Soon after arriving at BKCC, Plaintiff encountered Officer Sarah Pruitt("Pruitt" or "Defendant"), a prison guard who first met Plaintiff at a previous VDOC facility.At that time, Pruitt told De'lonta that at the previous facility, "I used to watch you all the time."ECF No. 1, Compl.at 11.Shortly after, Pruitt returned to work after a few days off and related to De'lonta that Pruitt's girlfriend had caused Pruitt to suffer from food poisoning by cooking her spoiled eggs.After Pruitt recovered, she told De'lonta that "she went to 'straighten' the girlfriend," and would "'f--- her girlfriend's ass up' if she did 'that type of sh-- again.'"Id The purpose of this conversation was to communicate to De'lonta that Pruitt "doesn't like it when people cross her."Id

Also during April 2010, Pruitt "advised" De'lonta to submit a request that Pruitt be named her "contact liaison," which would allow Pruitt to "keep a close proximity to Plaintiff."Id.Around the same time, Pruitt illicitly delivered a black bra and black lace nylons to De'lonta, stating, "I think you will like these."⁴Id. at 11-12.At various times from April 2010 to July 30, 2010, Pruitt verbally reprimanded other inmates who were talking to De'lonta and told them to "get away from her."Id. at 12.Various other interactions occurred until De'lonta went out for surgery on July 30, 2010.Id.

Upon her return on November 2, 2010, De'lonta was reassigned to another building, away from Pruitt's assignment.Pruitt "[made] it her mission to come to" De'lonta's cell, telling De'lonta how good her body looked and telling her that she was not alone.Id.In March 2011, Pruitt woke up De'lonta in her cell and questioned her accusatorially, "You lied to me; why didn't you come to lunch?"Id. at 13.Also in March 2011, Pruitt threatened De'lonta when Pruitt thought that De'lonta had talked to two other prison guards about De'lonta's sexual orientation.Id. Pruitt told De'lonta, "You better not be lying to me, and don't talk to those other female officers."Id.

On two or perhaps three occasions in February and March of 2011, Pruitt came to De'lonta's cell unexpectedly and "sexually fondled"Plaintiff's breasts "in a deliberate and forceful manner" and "groped and squeezed"Plaintiff's penis.⁵Id.Plaintiff did not consent to this fondling and groping.Id.During the abuse, Pruitt told De'lonta that "I will make it work" and "Your breast are [sic] nice and perky."⁶Id. at 12.These instances of abuse caused De'lonta physical pain from the forceful squeezing of her private parts, extreme emotional pain and distress, and sleep deprivation.Id. at 13;see alsoid. at 23-24(alleging ongoing pain from the abuse).De'lonta alleges that she suffered unique "emotional implications" from the abuse as a transsexual who suffers from Gender Identity Disorder.⁷Id. at 23.

Based on this alleged sexual abuse, Plaintiff sued Pruitt under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her Eighth Amendment rights, as well as her rights under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15601-15609(2006)("PREA").

II.LEGAL STANDARD

Pruitt has raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, entitling her to summary judgment."Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful."Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531(4th Cir.2011)(en banc)(citingSaucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 206(2001), overruled in part byPearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223(2009)).Qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry: (a) whether the plaintiff's allegations state a claim that defendant's conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and if so, (b) whether that right was clearly established.Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.If the Court determines that the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, do not show that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right, then the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment without further discussion of qualified immunity.Id. at 201.

III.ANALYSIS

A.Prison Rape Elimination Act Claim

Liberally construing the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks relief under § 1983 for Pruitt's violations of the PREA.Assuming Pruitt violated the PREA when she allegedly sexually abused De'lonta, there is no basis in law for a private cause of action under § 1983 to enforce a PREA violation."[S]ection 1983 itself creates no rights; rather it provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred."Doe v. Broderick, 225 F.3d 440, 447(4th Cir.2000)(internal citations omitted)."[W]here the text and structure of a statute provide no indication that Congress intends to create new individual rights, there is no basis for a private suit, whether under § 1983 or under an implied right of action."Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 286(2002).

Nothing in the PREA suggests that Congress intended to create a private right of action for inmates to sue prison officials for noncompliance with the Act.SeeBall v. Beckworth, No. CV 11-00037, 2011 WL 4375806, at *4(D. Mont.Aug. 31, 2011)(citing cases)."The PREA is intended to address the problem of rape in prison, authorizes grant money, and creates acommission to study the issue. . . .The statute does not grant prisoners any specific rights."Chinnici v. Edwards, No. l:07-cv-229, 2008 WL 3851294, at *3(D. Vt.Aug. 13, 2008).Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim based on an alleged violation of the PREA.AccordRivera v- Drake, No. 09-CV-1182, 2010 WL 1172602(E.D. Wis.Mar. 23, 2010);Law v. Whitson, No. 2:08-CV-0291, 2009 WL 5029564(E.D. Cal.Dec. 15, 2009);Inscoe v. Yates, No. L08-CV-001588, 2009 WL 3617810(E.D. Cal.Oct. 28,2009).

Because Plaintiff cannot show that Pruitt violated her constitutional or statutory rights under the PREA, Pruitt is entitled to qualified immunity under the first Saucier prong.533 U.S. at 206.Accordingly, the CourtGRANTS the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's PREA claim.

B.Eighth Amendment Claim

"To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the deprivation of that right was committed by a person acting under color of state law."West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48(1988).In her § 1983 claim, Plaintiff alleges that Pruitt subjected her to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of her Eighth Amendment rights while acting under the color of state law.⁸In response, Pruitt claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

The first prong of the qualified immunity analysis is whether—in the light most favorable to Plaintiff—Plaintiff alleges that Pruitt undertook conduct that violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.In a § 1983 claim against a state official under the EighthAmendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the alleged conduct is "objectively, sufficiently serious"; and (2) that the prison official was "deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's rights, health or safety" and had a "sufficiently culpable state of mind."Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834(1994).

As to the first prong of the qualified immunity test, it is undisputed in the case law that sexual abuse by a prison guard on an inmate may violate the Eighth Amendment.SeeWoodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 118(2006)(Breyer, J., dissenting)("Accordingly, those inmates who are sexually assaulted by guards, or whose sexual assaults by other inmates are facilitated by guards, have suffered grave deprivations of their Eighth Amendment rights.");Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834("Being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.")(internal citation omitted);Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197(9th Cir.2000)("A sexual assault on an inmate by a guard—regardless of the gender of the guard or of the prisoner—is deeply 'offensive to human dignity.'")(citingFelix v. McCarthy, 939 F.2d 699, 702(9th Cir.1991));Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 861(2d Cir.1997)("Because sexual abuse by a corrections officer may constitute serious harm inflicted by an officer with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, allegations of such abuse are cognizable as Eighth Amendment claims.");see alsoRoten v. McDonald, No. CIV.A. 08-081-JJF, 2009 WL 4348367, at *4(D. Del.Nov. 30, 2009)(citing cases), aff'd.394 F. App'x 836(3d Cir.2010).

Courts have recognized, however, that not every allegation of sexual abuse is "objectively, sufficiently serious" for purposes of the Eighth...