Mancia v. Elam
| Decision Date | 13 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 7:19CV00625 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | ARNOLD J. MORALES MANCIA, Plaintiff, v. MARCUS ELAM, ET AL., Defendants. |
Arnold J. Morales Mancia, Pro Se Plaintiff;
Stacie A. Sessoms, Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Justice & Public safety Division, Richmond, Virginia, for Defendants.
In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, to which the plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has responded. Finding the motion ripe for consideration, and having carefully reviewed the record, I conclude that summary judgment for the defendants must be granted.
When his claims arose, Arnold J. Morales Mancia was an inmate in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”), incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison. The defendants are Marcus Elam, Jeffery Kiser, Larry Collins and M. L. Counts. Morales Mancia alleges three claims related to a prison disciplinary proceeding conducted by defendant Counts: (1) Counts deprived Morales Mancia of due process by refusing to obtain an inmate witness statement he requested and refusing to review surveillance camera video footage; (2) Counts showed bias against Morales Mancia; and (3) Collins Kiser, and Elam failed to correct these due process violations on appeal. As relief, Morales Mancia seeks expungement of the disciplinary conviction and monetary relief.
Based only on the allegations of the Complaint, I earlier denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to these claims. Morales Mancia v. Elam, No. 7:19CV00625, 2020 WL 4572359, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2020). Now, on summary judgment, I reviewed submitted evidence from the defendants which includes Hearing Officer Counts' affidavit, documentation from the disciplinary proceedings, and an audio recording of the disciplinary hearing. That evidence shows as follows.
On May 2, 2018, Morales Mancia was served a Disciplinary Offense Report (“DOR”), charging him with a Disciplinary Offense Code 137A - lewd or obscene acts directed toward or in the presence of another. The DOR charged:
On 5/2/2018 at approximately 10:45 A.M., I nurse A. Mullins entered C 1 pod, Prea, [Prison Rape Elimination Act] announcement made. Offender Morales #1365205, C-103 was up on his sink in the window with penis in hand facing my direction. I, A. Mullins told the offender to get down, he refused, I told him a 2nd time, he still refused until the officers got to his cell.
Counts Aff. Enclosure B, Disciplinary Offense Rep. 50, ECF No. 30. Morales Mancia was also advised of his due process rights. For a Category I offense, he had the right to question the reporting officer in person. He also exercised his rights to request other witnesses or statements and documentary evidence, to receive 24-hours' notice to prepare for the hearing, and to appear at the hearing. Although Morales Mancia refused to sign the DOR, he received the forms to request witnesses and evidence.
Morales Mancia's hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2018, and then rescheduled two times because a staff member or witness was unavailable. On June 8, 2018, defendant Counts served as the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) and conducted the disciplinary proceedings on the Offense Code 137A charge. Counts opened the hearing by reading the charge into the record. She advised Morales Mancia of his rights, recognized his request for and appointment of a staff advisor, confirmed that Morales Mancia had had time to go over his supporting documentation with his advisor, and confirmed that Morales Mancia had no questions about his due process rights. Counts asked Morales Mancia how he pled, and he stated not guilty.
Counts then addressed Morales Mancia's first Witness Request form, which sought a statement from inmate Austin Eckert. Morales Mancia alleged that Eckert was at his cell door when Nurses Mullins and Cantrell[1] were in Morales Mancia's pod. Morales Mancia believed Eckert would state that Nurse Cantrell was standing near the pod office, making it impossible for Nurse Mullins to see straight into the cell door window to the sink in C103, Morales Mancia's cell. Morales Mancia thus wanted Eckert to provide evidence impeaching Nurse Mullins' credibility. DHO Larry Mullins, in preparation for a previously scheduled hearing time, had determined that Eckert's testimony was not relevant and refused to obtain a statement from him. Counts stated that she agreed with DHO Mullins' decision. In Counts' affidavit, she states that she believed Eckert could not have reliable information about where Morales Mancia was inside his cell and where Nurse Contrell was in the pod, because Eckert was housed in C123 - on the same wall as Morales Mancia's C103, but on the floor above it. Based on this locational information, Counts avers that Eckert's testimony was irrelevant to the proceedings.
At the hearing, Counts next addressed Morales Mancia's form requesting documentary evidence, which asked for review of footage from the C1 pod cameras. Counts considered this request and determined that it was not seeking documentary evidence. At the time of Morales Mancia's hearing in June 2018, the VDOC did not classify video footage as documentary evidence, and inmates could not review pod video footage during disciplinary hearings because of security concerns. Counts explained to Morales Mancia that if she needed to review the video, she had authority to do so during the hearing. She states in her affidavit, however, that the requested camera footage would not have showed the inside of Morales Mancia's cell, so it would not have showed whether Morales Mancia was masturbating towards Nurse Mullins as charged, or not.
Counts also advised Morales Mancia that the written questions on his Reporting Officer Request form were not relevant. Counts explained that because the charge was a Category I offense, Mullins as the reporting officer would be present at the hearing for Morales Mancia to question in person.
Id. at ¶20. Phillips testified at the hearing that his statement was correct. When Counts asked Morales Mancia if he had any questions for Phillips, Morales Mancia answered that he did not.
Counts then asked Nurse Mullins, as the reporting officer, to verify that the information in her written statement was correct. Nurse Mullins did so and asked that her statement be considered as her testimony. Counts then read Nurse Mullins' statement into the record. Nurse Mullins verified that Morales Mancia was the inmate she had observed in her report. Counts then asked Morales Mancia if he had any questions for Nurse Mullins. Morales Mancia complained that Counts had rejected his written questions for Nurse Mullins as irrelevant. Counts asked Morales Mancia what his question was. Morales Mancia contended that his written questions were relevant, arguing that from where Nurse Mullins was standing in the pod area, there was no way she would have been able to see inside his cell to observe him masturbating. He did not ask the nurse any questions, however. Counts asked Morales Mancia if that argument was his statement. Morales Mancia responded by asking why he was having a hearing 34 days after the incident. Counts explained that authorized continuances had pushed back the hearing date, based on the unavailability of the reporting officer or witnesses.
At this point, Counts asked Morales Mancia if he had anything else he wanted her to consider. He repeated that he wanted her to review footage from the four cameras in the pod and to ignore the testimony of Nurse Mullins and Officer Phillips as witnesses.
Counts found Morales Mancia guilty of the offense charged. She stated her reasons in writing as follows:
Nurse Mullins testified that as she entered C-1 pod the Prea announcement was made. Offender Morales #1365205 was seen on his sink with penis in hand facing her direction. Nurse Mullins told the offender to get down twice, both times he refused until the officers got to his cell. Offender denied committing this offense. I[, ] IHO Counts[, ] determined positive identification was made of the offender and the actions observed by Nurse Mullins. I find the actions were intentional and were considered to be lewd. Guilty decision rendered.
Counts Aff. Enclosure B, Decision of Hr'g Officer 51, ECF No. 30.
Counts asked Morales Mancia if there was any other information he wished her to consider regarding the appropriate penalty, and he suggested six months with no telephone privileges, which had been the prehearing penalty offer he had rejected. Instead, Counts determined that a $15 fine was the appropriate penalty for Morales Mancia's offense. Morales Mancia received an appeals packet, and the hearing concluded.
In Morales Mancia's appeals, he offered a more complete account of the events of May 2, 2018, than he had during the disciplinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial