Le Van Son v. Inch
| Decision Date | 05 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 5:18-cv-265-Oc-32PRL |
| Parties | LE VAN SON, Plaintiff, v. MARK S. INCH, in his official capacity as the Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, and JESS BALDRIDGE, in his official capacity as the Warden of Sumter Correctional Institution, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this action by filing a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. 8. He is proceeding on an Amended Complaint alleging that he was denied access to a Vietnamese translator in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Doc. 10. He sues Mark S. Inch in his official capacity as the Secretary of the FDOC, and Jess Baldridge in his official capacity as the Warden of Sumter Correctional Institution. Id. at 2. As relief, Plaintiff requests, inter alia,that the Court find Rule 33-501.301(3)(b) of the Florida Administrative Code unconstitutional, issue an order for the appointment of counsel to represent Plaintiff, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. See Doc. 5.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. See Doc. 24 (Motion). Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition. See Doc. 28 (Response). Defendants' Motion is ripe for review.
Plaintiff alleges that he is a Vietnamese national with "limited aptitude in English." Doc. 10 at 5. According to Plaintiff, in 2011, while housed at Franklin Correctional Institution, he requested, but the FDOC refused to provide him with a Vietnamese translator to assist him with reading his state court trial transcripts. Id. at 4. He then appears to claim that on December 12, 2017, while housed at Sumter Correctional Institution, he again requested but was denied a Vietnamese interpreter "to assist [him] in filing [a] postconviction motion and to interpre[t] trial transcript[s]." Id. at 5.
He explains that he did not suffer any physical injury as a result of Defendants' actions. Id. However, he argues that being denied a translator violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights "guaranteed [to] all other inmates being held in [the FDOC] who are provided with [an] interpreter to assist in filing postconviction motions and other legalpleading[s]." Id. at 6. He appears to argue that Rule 33-501.301(3)(d) of the Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[l]aw libraries shall provide interpreters for any language other than English that is native to 5 percent or more of the statewide inmate population," is unconstitutional, because it allows the FDOC to exclude interpreters for Vietnamese inmates. Doc. 10 at 4. He further claims that being denied a translator deprived him of his First Amendment right of access to the courts.2 Id. at 5.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" that amount to "naked assertions" will not do. Id. (quotations, alteration, and citation omitted). Moreover, a complaint must "contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the materialelements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotations and citations omitted). The Court liberally construes the pro se Plaintiff's allegations. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011).
In their Motion, Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, because: (a) Plaintiff fails to allege a denial of access to courts; (b) Plaintiff fails to allege a proper equal protection claim; and (c) Plaintiff's claims regarding Defendants' 2011 actions are barred by the statute of limitations.3 See generally Doc. 24.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible access to courts claim, because he does not allege an actual injury. Doc. 24 at 5. According to Defendants, Plaintiff fails to allege how the denial of a translator prevented him from raising a nonfrivolous claim in some past proceeding. Id. Instead, they maintain that Plaintiff has only claimed that he "wants a translator to help him with future litigation," and that the relief he seeks in this action (i.e.,appointment of counsel and finding a FDOC rule unconstitutional) also does not demonstrate actual injury. Id.
Access to courts is a right grounded in several constitutional amendments, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003); see Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1224 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006) (). To state an access-to-courts claim, a plaintiff must first establish an actual injury. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-50 (1996); Barbour, 471 F.3d at 1225. "To allege an actual injury, the complaint 'must identify a nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim.'" Alvarez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 646 F. App'x 858, 867 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002)). "More specifically, the complaint must describe the underlying claim 'well enough to apply the nonfrivolous test and to show that the arguable nature of the underlying claim is more than hope.'" Id. (quoting Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney's Office for Escambia Cty., 592 F.3d 1237, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010)). Additionally, the plaintiff must show that the underlying nonfrivolous legal claim was raised, or would have been raised, in connection with a direct appeal, a collateral attack on his conviction, or a civil rights action. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354-57; Cranford v. Nevada Dep't of Corr., 398F. App'x 540, 546-47 (11th Cir. 2010). "Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotations and citation omitted).
Plaintiff fails to allege an actual injury. While he generally alleges in his Response that "all prior petitions [have] been addressed in court without a Vietnamese interpreter and as a result[,] all petitions [have] been denied," see Doc. 28 at 3, this allegation lacks sufficient specificity to survive dismissal. Plaintiff's assertions are conclusory, and he fails to highlight any nonfrivolous underlying claim that he could not adequately present because he lacked an interpreter. For example, while Plaintiff attaches to his Amended Complaint a copy of the state court's order denying on the merits one of his prior Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motions for postconviction relief, see Doc. 10 at 18-23, Plaintiff fails to explain how his inability to obtain an interpreter impeded his ability to litigate any of the claims he raised or may have raised inthat motion.4 As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. His access to courts claim is due to be dismissed.5
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state an equal protection claim. Doc. 24 at 6. In support, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to allege that he is similarly situated to other prisoners who have received more favorable treatment. Id. They also argue that Plaintiff failed to allege that Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff based on a protected class. Id.
Liberally construing Plaintiff's allegations, he appears to allege that Rule 33-501.301(3)(d) of the Florida Administrative Code violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is based on "invidious discrimination" against "race and national origin." Doc. 28 at 4; see also Doc. 10 at 5. He argues that he is a member of a protected class and this Administrative Rule allows Defendants to refuse to provide Plaintiff with a Vietnamese translator becauseless than 5% of the prison population speaks Vietnamese. Doc. 28 at 4. He further claims that Defendants provide interpreters to assist other similarly situated inmates (i.e., Spanish and French speaking inmates) in translating and filing postconviction pleadings, and Defendants' disparate treatment of Plaintiff for speaking Vietnamese is unconstitutional. Id.
To state an equal protection claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that (1) he is similarly situated with other prisoners who received more favorable treatment; and (2) his discriminatory treatment was based on a suspect classification such as national origin, or impinged on a fundamental right. Arthur v. Thomas, 674 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir. 2012); Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944, 946-47 (11th Cir. 2001). If a suspect classification or fundamental right is implicated, a court must apply strict scrutiny review. Johnson v California, 543 U.S. 499, 506-07 (2005). "Where the statute at issue 'does not discriminate on the basis of a suspect classification or the exercise of a fundamental right,' the appropriate standard of review for an equal protection claim is the rational basis test. United States v. Marshall, 416 F. App'x 824, 828 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Solomon, 848 F.2d 156, 157 (11th Cir. 1988)).
Plaintiff has set forth sufficient allegations to state an equal protection claim based on a suspect classification.6 Liberally read, Plaintiff alleges that hewas treated...
To continue reading
Request your trial