Miller v. W. Va. Div. of Corr.
| Decision Date | 16 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:16-cv-04225 |
| Parties | TERESA MILLER, Plaintiff, v. WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff, Teresa Miller, proceeding pro se and then incarcerated at the Lakin Correctional Center ("Lakin") in West Columbia, West Virginia, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. (ECF No. 1). The action was subsequently transferred to this court and is assigned to the Honorable Robert C. Chambers, United States District Judge. By standing order, the matter was referred the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. Having fully considered Plaintiff's claims and her requests for relief, the undersigned FINDS that portions of the amended complaint are moot, portions request compensation from individuals and entities that are not "persons" under § 1983, and the remaining portions fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Therefore, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the presiding district judge DISMISS the amended complaint, with prejudice, and remove this action from the docket of the court. For the same reasons, the undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the presiding district judge DENY Plaintiff's motion to amend the amended complaint, which seeks to increase her prayer for monetary relief to one billion dollars. (ECF No. 34).
On November 14, 2013, Plaintiff entered a guilty plea to a drug trafficking charge brought in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia.1 On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff was sentenced to a term of 1 to 15 years, to be served in the West Virginia State Penitentiary. However, in lieu of incarceration in the penitentiary, the Circuit Court allowed Plaintiff to serve her sentence on home confinement with the condition that she report to a probation officer as directed. Plaintiff did not appeal her conviction or sentence.
On February 25, 2014, Plaintiff's home confinement was revoked when she tested positive for cocaine, and she was delivered to the West Virginia Division of Corrections. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the revocation order, and on June 9, 2014, the Circuit Court agreed to place her on home confinement again, contingent on the Preston County home confinement office accepting her, as well as her enrollment in either drug court or an in-patient treatment program. Arrangements for home confinement were not completed; therefore, Plaintiff was not released pursuant to this order and, instead, was taken to Lakin.
On March 9, 2015, a hearing was held on a second motion for reconsideration. The Circuit Court agreed to place Plaintiff on six months of probation. Consequently, she wasimmediately released from Lakin.
While on release, Plaintiff allegedly violated the terms of probation and was arrested on July 20, 2015. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court reimposed Plaintiff's original sentence. She was remanded to the Division of Corrections and returned to Lakin. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the revocation order; however, the Circuit Court denied the motion based upon the number of Plaintiff's probation violations and the fact that she was under consideration for parole. Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's order to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ("WVSC"), and that appeal is still pending. Sometime between August 3 and August 12, 2016, Plaintiff was released from Lakin. (ECF Nos. 30, 31). She currently resides in Morgantown. (ECF No. 33).
On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a lengthy, rambling complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. (ECF No. 1). The complaint included numerous criticisms levied against multiple individuals and institutions that Plaintiff had encountered during her journey through the state penal system. Altogether, counting continuations and attachments, the complaint was 187 pages long. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4). On May 5, 2016, the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff a Notice of Deficient Pleading, indicating that Plaintiff needed to provide complete names, to the extent known, and addresses of the defendants in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff was given twenty-one days to comply. (ECF No. 5). However, the following day, United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble, noting that the claims involved facilities and individuals located in the Southern District of West Virginia, transferred Plaintiff's case to this court. (ECF No. 6).
On June 23, 2016, the undersigned issued an order denying seven pending motionsfiled by Plaintiff and identifying several deficiencies in the complaint and the in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff was instructed to submit a completed Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees & Costs and to file an amended complaint setting forth concise claims against the named defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff was further advised that some of her claims—those that challenged the fact or duration of her confinement—were not properly brought in a § 1983 complaint and needed to be asserted in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff was given sixty days to comply with the order.
On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. (ECF Nos. 27, 28). On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff sent the Clerk of Court a Notice of Change of Address form, indicating that she was no longer housed at Lakin and was now residing in Kingwood, West Virginia. (ECF No. 31). On September 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second notice of change of address, indicating that she had moved to Morgantown, West Virginia. (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff no longer appears in the inmate locator of either the West Virginia Division of Corrections, or the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority. Her most recent filing indicates that she remains on release in Morgantown. (ECF No. 34 at 3).
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff names twenty (22) defendants, including the West Virginia Division of Corrections, Commissioner Jim Rubenstein, individuals employed at Lakin, individuals connected with the Charleston Correctional Center, and individuals associated with PSI Med, an entity that allegedly provided remote medical services to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff lists a number of grievances against the defendants, including lack of access to the law library; refusal to add courts to Plaintiff'scall list; alleged retaliation for filing civil cases; loss of personal belongings during transport; problems with work release; violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"); ineffective grievance procedure; the suspicious application of clear tape to her mail; letters not being delivered; religious discrimination; delays in granting her parole; refusal of daily access to the reading library; and suspected tampering with her kosher food. (Id.). With respect to relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to explain why she was brought to prison without a sentencing order; why she is unable to use the law library and have cases dismissed for lack of using it; why she does not have access to programs designed to help her integrate into society; why she is punished for filing legal papers; why the defendants are "trying to distance me between my friends and family"; and for any monetary relief owed to her for the alleged violations of her constitutional and civil rights. (ECF No. 27 at 6, 15). A short time ago, Plaintiff moved for leave to increase her demand for monetary relief to one billion dollars. (ECF No. 34).
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must screen each case in which a prisoner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. The court must dismiss the case, or any part of it, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant "who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915. A "frivolous" case has been defined as one which is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), or lacks "an arguable basis either in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). Likewise, a complaint fails to state a compensable claim, and therefore should be dismissed, when viewing the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to theplaintiff, the complaint does not contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
The Supreme Court further clarified the "plausibility" standard in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009), stating that the Court is required to accept as true the factual allegations asserted in the complaint, but is not required to accept the legitimacy of legal conclusions that are "couched as . . . factual allegation[s]." Id. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp, 550 U.S. at 554). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not 'show[n]'—'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 679.
Plaintiff has filed her complaint pro se, and courts are required to liberally construe pro se complaints. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, even under this less stringent standard, the complaint still must...
To continue reading
Request your trial