Thomas v. Clear

• Decision Date: 20 September 2021
• Docket Number: 7:20-cv-00584
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
• Parties: JAMES CALEB THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN CLEAR, et al., Defendants.

JAMES CALEB THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN CLEAR, et al., Defendants.

No. 7:20-cv-00584

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

September 20, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MICHAEL F. URBANSKI CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court on defendants Stephen Clear and Larry Chad Kilgore's motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No 26. Plaintiff James Caleb Thomas, a former Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, opposes. ECF No. 34. For the reasons discussed below, the court will GRANT defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

I.

James Thomas was incarcerated in the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority (“SWVRJA” or the “Jail”).^[1] Compl., ECF No. 1, at ¶ 5. At all relevant times, Stephen Clear was the superintendent of SWVRJA, and Major Chad Kilgore was the SWVRJA administrator.^[2] Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.

On July 15, 2020, Thomas received an inmate mail rejection form from the Jail mailroom, notifying him that SWVRJA rejected mail addressed to Thomas from the Theosophical Society. Id. at ¶ 39; Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ECF No. 26, at 3. The Theosophical Society is “a religious-based organization in the business of sending prisoners books, publications, and periodicals and allows them to subscribe to monthly editorials and pamphlets.” ECF No. 1 at ¶ 42; see also ECF No. 26 at 5-6. Initially, Thomas was not given a reason for his mail being rejected.

On July 17, 2020, Thomas submitted a grievance inquiry to the Jail, stating:

This is in regards to the inquiry from the mailroom 7/15/20 about my rejected mail. This was mail from the Theosophical Society (religious organization). I have gotten mail from them before so I don't know why it was rejected. Why is [there] no officer to appeal the rejected mail to? Has the mail been sent back? If so then why wasn't I allowed to appeal this to someone to review the rejected mail before it was return[ed]? I believe my due process has been denied.

ECF No. 26-2 at 1.

On July 21, 2020, the Jail accepted Thomas's grievance, and a grievance officer responded, “[A]fter speaking with the mailroom clerk it was determined that your mail was rejected for blue ink.” Id. The Jail has penological concerns about admitting mail with large amounts of colored ink because the ink may be damaging to the health and safety of the Jail. Specifically, colored ink is often used to smuggle in contraband such as drugs. Am. Decl. of Lieutenant Jeannie Patrick, ECF No. 35-1, at 3. Moreover, the ink is used to tattoo, augmenting the spread of communicable diseases amongst inmates and jail staff. Id. Furthermore, the Jail does not have the resources to adequately check every piece of heavily colored ink mail to determine whether the mail has been altered. Id. As such, the Jail prefers that reading materials be donated to the Jail's bookroom, of which inmates have access. Stephen Clear Decl., ECF No. 26-4, at 2. These reading materials undergo a “one-time analysis, ” which is “far more manageable for the Jail than analyzing thousands of mailed items to individual inmates.” Id. There are no restrictions on inmates corresponding with publishers to request specific reading materials be donated to the Jail's bookroom. Id.

On July 22, 2020, Thomas appealed the Jail's rejection, expressing:

I received mail from the Theosophical Society before in color. In fact, they sent me a full color pamphlet that was very long which was allowed. So what's the difference[ ]? You have no reason to reject my mail from them based on color ink when you allow full color pamphlets. Also you did not answer why I wasn't provided an impartial jail official other [than] the person who rejected the mail for review. You gave me no such review. Has the pamphlet been returned to the Theosophical Society?

ECF No. 26-2 at 1. The Jail accepted Thomas's appeal on July 23, 2020, and a grievance appeal officer said, “[T]he sender has the right of appeal to the jail administrator, you only receive a mail confiscation or rejection form.” Id.

At the same time Thomas was corresponding with the Jail through its grievance process, he was writing letters to Clear and Kilgore as well. On July 19, 2020, Thomas wrote Clear and Kilgore, largely restating what he would assert in his July 22, 2020 appeal noted above. On July 23, 2020, Kilgore wrote Thomas back, noting in relevant part, “All religious material that meets security needs will and has been approved to come back. Too much color and content may reflect different in each book.” Id. at 33. On July 30, 2020, Kilgore further explained to Thomas that “[t]he mail is scanned by me and as long as there are no penological threat[s] I allow the religious material to go back. Thanks for bringing to my attention that after scanning all the mail I have missed one that you feel has too much color. Please give that one back to the pod officer as soon as possible.” Id. at 38. Later that day, the Jail again sent Thomas a mail rejection form notifying him that the Jail rejected another pamphlet from the Theosophical Society. While Thomas did not file a formal grievance for the July 30, 2020 mail, he did write another letter to Clear and Kilgore.

On August 3, 2020, Thomas wrote Clear and Kilgore, arguing:

The first and most important issue regarding my mail is I was not given an appeal process to have my mail reviewed by another officer before it was returned. Along with your letter dated July 30, 2020 I was given another rejection form rejecting mail from the Theosophical Society. Once again there was no reason for rejection and no way to challenge therefore denying me my 14th amendment right to adequate due process. In my previous letters you have completely ignored this issue, why?

Might I respectfully recommend you to begin giving us prisoners an appeal process and a way to challenge the rejection before the mail and/or publication is sent back to the sender. Also give on the Inmate Mail Notice Form the reason for the rejection and the address of the sender in case I and/or other prisoners do not have it, or I am going to take this matter to civil court.

The second issue you failed to respond to is my inquiry about the Jail's operation procedures/guidelines for incoming mail and publications. This is important, because I am confused and do not know what mail or books I can or cannot have. As far as I know we are not even allowed to have Bibles sent to us and most if not all books will be rejected. This is unfair and I feel it is unconstitutional.

ECF No. 34-5 at 12-13.

On August 11, 2020, Kilgore responded to Thomas's letter. In relevant part, he said:

When books or letters are returned to sender there [are] no rights violated. You are confused between confiscation and return to sender actions of periodicals and letters. When or if you have something confiscated then you shall receive more info but yours was only returned to sender. We will not start an appeal process on items returned. The only books that are allowed have to be religious, legal or educational.

• Religious must be from a true practiced religion. As for the Bibles there are provided by the jail. If you are practicing a religion that we do not have a Bible for then you can reach out to a leader of that religion to have them to donate the Bible of your choice to the facility, then we will get it to you.

Id. at 2. Defendants are unaware of any binding precedent or law which prohibited their conduct or informed them that their actions violated Thomas's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Chad Kilgore Decl., ECF No. 26-3, at 3; ECF No. 26-4 at 3; ECF No. 351 at 4.

On September 29, 2020, Thomas brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.^[3]Thomas contends that he is entitled to relief because the Jail's mail policy (1) is unknown to inmates; (2) is arbitrary because he has received full color pamphlets before and some mail containing colored ink is allowed, leading to biased decisions as to what mail is accepted or rejected; (3) does not provide a reason as to why mail is rejected; and (4) does not provide for inmates to appeal their mail rejection to an impartial officer. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 37-43. Thomas seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. Defendants oppose and filed for summary judgment, asserting that (1) Thomas's First Amendment rights were not violated because the Jail's colored ink concerns are rationally related to the legitimate penological interest of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the Jail's inmates and staff; (2) Thomas's Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated because Thomas was afforded more than the constitutionally protected minimum due process requirements; and (3) even if Thomas's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, Clear and Kilgore are entitled to qualified immunity because defendants are unaware of any binding precedent or law that prohibited their conduct or informed them that they were violating Thomas's rights. ECF No. at 2.

II.

Under Rule 56(a), the court must “grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 2013). When making this determination, the court should consider “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with . . . [any] affidavits” filed by the parties. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Whether a fact is material depends on the relevant substantive law. Anderson...