On December 19, 2014, three Virginia prisoners placed in administrative segregation at Red Onion State Prison, filed this pro-se lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The plaintiffs sued the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), various VDOC prison officials, and the External Review Team, Dual Treatment Team, and Unit Management Team of the Virginia Department of Corrections. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages.
The plaintiffs claimed that the VDOC Operating Procedure 830.A, a self-described Segregation Reduction Step-Down Program designed to help prisoners progress in stages toward a return to the general prison population, violated plaintiffs’ rights. Specifically, they alleged that they had been assigned to the most restrictive status (“IM”) without adequate due process. Due to their classification, they had also been denied the opportunity to participate in the step down process. They claimed that the IM classified prisoners were treated in a discriminatory manner as compared to other prisoners in administrative segregation, and that these conditions of confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment. They sought to abolish the procedure, be reassigned to a lower classification, and to be granted monetary damages.
On January 14, 2015, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class and to appoint counsel. On March 6, 2015, District Judge James P. Jones denied both these motions, finding that the circumstances were not “exceptional” so as to justify appointing counsel. Therefore, because the plaintiffs were still bringing the case pro-se, Judge Jones found it inappropriate to grant class certification.
On April 8, 2015, Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou severed this action into three separate civil suits, one for each plaintiff; the immediate case is for the named plaintiff’s action. Judge Ballou held that the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) required prisoners to file separate filing fees. The purpose of the act was to force “prisoners to think twice” before filing civil litigation.
The court subsequently filed the original complaint under separate dockets for the two other plaintiffs. Both cases were referred to Magistrate Judge Ballou. He dismissed one case (Velazquez v. Virginia Department of Corrections, 7:15-cv-00157-JPJ-RSB) on September 27, 2016. The plaintiff in the other case (Rivera v. Virginia Department of Corrections, 7:15-cv-00235-JPJ-RSB) moved to voluntarily withdraw his action on May 28, 2015.
On May 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In it, he alleged that OP 830.A discriminated against IM inmates, who suffered a much more restrictive environment than inmates in other forms of administrative segregation; that IM status permanently prevented an inmate from working his way out of segregated confinement; that officials arbitrarily assigned him to IM status without allowing him to be present or offer argument, contradictory testimony, witnesses, or evidence; that review between the various privilege level status steps was not meaningful; that spiteful officers could falsely report poor behavior or fail to accurately record participation in programming, thus preventing progress to the next step; and that officers routinely approved their own recommendations during the step-down program reviews, in violation of VDOC policy. The plaintiff also complained that OP 830.A affected inmates’ opportunities for parole and earning good conduct time.
On July 28, 2016 the defendants filed a motion for summary judgement. On September 28, 2016, Judge Jones granted the defendants’ motion. He held that the plaintiff had failed to show that his conditions of confinement were atypical or significantly harsh as compared to conditions expected within a prison environment. Nor, according to Judge Jones, had the plaintiff shown that the procedure violated his due process rights. Moreover, Judge Jones rejected the plaintiff’s equal protection claim because he held that the plaintiff was not similarly situated to the other prisoners in less restrictive confinement. Judge Jones dismissed all claims against the Virginia Department of Corrections as legally frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). He held that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any governmental entity acting as an arm of the state, such as the VDOC, was a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. 2016 WL 5415903.
On October 6, 2016, the plaintiff appealed the district court’s September 28th ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On March 30, 2017, the Circuit Court assigned counsel for the plaintiff. On October 26, 2017, oral arguments were held before Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, Robert B. King, and Henry F. Floyd. On November 22, 2017, the Circuit Court panel, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, affirmed the judgment on the reasoning of the district court. The case is now closed.
Victoria Harp - 11/08/2017
Lisa Limb - 03/25/2019
compress summary
