Witt v. Redman et al, No. 7:2017cv00438 - Document 85 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/13/2018. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ct-E- s OFFICE U. s.Dl:T.= AT ROANOKE,VA Flob sEP 13 2218 IN TH E U N ITED STATE S D ISTR ICT C O U RT FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTR ICT OF VIR G INIA R O AN OK E DIW SIO N LEONARD TH OM ASM QTT, JUCA . YY1 CASE NO.7:17CV00438 Plaintiff, V. M EM O RAN DU M O PINIO N REDM AN c c s, By: Hon.GlenE.Conrad Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge D efendants. The plaintiff,Leonard Thom asW itt,a Virginia inm ateproceeding pro K ,filed tltis civil . rights action tmder 42 U.S.C. j 1983, alleging claims of excessive force and deliberate indifferenceto hisseriousm edicalneeds,in violation ofhisconstitutionalrights.Atissuein this memorandum opinion is the partialmotion to dismiss filed by defendants SergeantCGSgt'') Redman,Jolm A.W oodson,D.W atford,Henry Ponton,M ajorRussell,and B.J.Lokey (iGthe securitydefendants''),and W itt'sresponsetotheirmotion. Afterreview oftherecord,thecourt concludes thatthe m otion m ustbe granted. W itt's claim alleging excessive force againstSgt. Redman in llis individualcapacity,which is notchallenged in the m otion to dism iss,willgo forward. 1. B ackaround At about 11:18 mm .on September 24,2015,as W itt'was leaving the dining hall at Augusta CorrectionalCenter tçW ugusta''l,Sgt Redman told him thatM s.W atford,the lmit Witt v. Redman et al Doc. 85 m anager,had asked to speak to llim .1 W ittfollow ed Sgt. R edm an to the foyer outside the W atch 1 This summary of factual allegations, stated in the lightmost favorable to W itt is taken from his complaint,hisresponsetothedefendants'motion,andattachmentsthatheincorporatesby reference(ECFNos.1 and56). Dockets.Justia.com ' Comm ander's Office,where they waited forM s.W atford. W ittsaw through the window that Ms.W atfordwasstandingjustoutsidethefoyerdooronthesidewalk.W henhet' riedtowalk put the doorto Glk to her,however,Sgt.Redman jllmped on Msback and pinned llim againsta nearby railing. Seconds later,othercorrectionalofficers ran up to assistSgt Redm an. In the enstling altercation,Sgt.Redman flipped W ittoverthe railing and punched him in the mouth, and officerskneed and kicked him . W ith W ittfacedown on the grass,Sgt.Redm an ordered full restraints,wllich were applied too tightly. The oY cers then picked W ittup using the chain attachedto therestraintsand transported him to Segregation. In Segregation,a nurseexnmined W ittand logged theseobservations,now in hismedical records: GGoffenderhasabrasionsto (leftjtemple,(rightl lowerlip inside,bilateralwristand bilateralankles.Offenderhassomenumbnessin (lef1)m ist.Offenderisabletorotatewristand m ake a fst. N o othercomplaints.'' P1.'sResp.Ex.,at 1,ECF N o.56-1. The ntlrse instructed W itton proceduresto access medicalcare from segregation and then leftthe cell. W ittalleges thathewentfor24hourswithoutanytreatmentforllispainorinjuries. 0n October3, 2015,W ittfiled an inform alcom plaintform zaboutbeing assaulted by Sgt Redman and others on Septemberz4- being ptm ched in them outh and kicked in the face,and having restraintsi'used asEaqweaponto cutopen''hiswristsand nnkles.'' Compl.Ex.A,at1, ECF No.1-1. M ajorRussellresponded: tçYotlrallegationsofbeing assaulted on the day that you wereplacedinto seg has(sicjbeen reviewed. You werecheckedby themedicaldept.and noneoftheinjuriesthatyouarestatingwasfoundwhen youweretakentoseg.''J.1. J . ' 2 Thecourttakesjudicialnoticeofthefactthatfilinganinformalcomplaintform isgenerallytheflrststep an inmate willtake tmderthe Virginia Departmentof Corrections(<tVDOC'')Offender Grievance Procedlzre, OperatingProcedure(<rP'')866.1.Dependingontheissueraisedintheform,itwillbeassijnedtoanappropriate staff member,who should write a response on the form and return it to the inmate m thin fifteen days. If dissatisfied:theinmatemaythentakethenextstep underOP 866.1bytiling aregulargrievance.Thewarden orhis desilneew1l1investigatethematterandissueaLevelIresponsetothemma . te,whocanthenappealtotheregional admmistratorforaLevel11response. 2 W ittraised the sam e allegations on a regulargrievance form ,stating that Sgt.Redman had assaulted him with a tGdeadly weapon''- a Gçfelony charge.'' J. t. kat6.Hedemandedtàatthe matterbe ûGdeeply investigated''and thatSg4.Redman be ttbroughttojustice forhis criminal behavior.'' J#. In theLevelIresponse,W arden W oodson ruled thegrievance UNFOUNDED, stating:GlYotlrmedicaltreatmentform doesn'tstatetheseverityofinjtlriesthatyouarestatingin yourcomplaintform.'' J. lJ-.at8. W arden W oodson also indicated thatan investigation' .ofthe alleged assaultwasongoing,butSsatthistim e there hasbeen no evidence fotmd to supportyour allegationsofcriminalbehaviorby Sgt Redm an.'' Id. In hisappealofthe Level1response,W ittstated thatM ajorRussellhad tGfalsifed his reportto coverup Sgt Redmanlçs)assessive (sicqassaultivebehavior.'' J. /-S W ittreported that thelocalm agistratewasinvestigating lliscrim inalcomplaint,and theComm onwealth'sAttom ey had been inform ed of Sgt.Redm an'sactions. In the Level11response,RegionalAdm inistrator (GçRA'')Ponton statedthattheinvestigationofW itt'sclaimsagainstSgt.Redman had dtrevealed no evidenceto support(W it1's)allegations.''Id.at11.W ittallegesthatM ajo!RussellandB.J. Lokey,Augusta's instimtional investigator, çGwillingly and tmlawfully withheld inform ation'' 9om the m agistrate to help Sgt Redman avoid prosecution. Com pl.13,ECF No. 1. W itt com plainsthatafterhe reported the cover-up to W arden W oodson and ltA Ponton,they did not ordera new intem alinvestigation. He also alleges thatM ajorRussellsaw W itl's injuries on September24,butdid notenstlrethathereceived imm ediatem edicaltreatment. Finally,W ittassertsthatM s.W atford triggered the eventsthatcaused llis injuries on ! September 24,2015. She was allegedly directing inmate traftk on the sidewalk,a dtlty not included in herjob description,and did not have secudty offcers escorting her,as'policy required. 3 Finally, W itt alleges generally that the supervisory oftk ials should som ehow have protected him f' rom Sgt.Redm an's actions. He reports thathe haspermanentnum bnessin llis lefthand and in thetoeson llisrightfootthatdoctorsatAugustahaveallegedly identified asthe resultofnervedam age. Liberally constnzing W itt'sj1983 complaint,he allegesthe following claimsforrelief againstthesectu'itydefendants:3 (1)M s.W atfordactedoutsideherjobdescriptiononSeptember 24,2015,thereby causing orfailing to protectW ittfrom eventsthatintlicted cnzeland tmusual plnishmenton him;(2)NSgt Redman used excessive force againstW ittthatday;(3)M ajor Russelland hw estigator Lokey conspired to falsify and/or withhold information about W itt's injuries9om thestatemagistrate;and(4)W arden W oodson andRA Ponton conspired touphold theresultofInvestigatorLokey'sincom pleteinvestigation ofthe Septem ber24 incident,and did notorderanew investigation.Thesedefenbantshavefiledapartialmotionto dismissastothese claim s. W itthasresponded to thatm otion with a cotmterafsdavitand attached exhibits,mnking them otion ripefordisposition. II. D iscussion A. ThçM otionto DismissStandardofReview A districtcourtshould dismissa complaintunderRule 12(b)(6)if,accepting a11wellpleaded allegationsin the complaintastrue and drawing a1lreasonable facm alinferencesin the plaintiY s favor,the complaintdoesnot allege ûGenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausibleon itsface.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,570 (2007). (CIA)plaintiffs obligation to provide the grotmds of his entitlem ent to relief requires m ore than labels and 3 W itt's complaintdoesnotnumber severalofhisclaims. Accordingly,the courthasassi> ed itsown nllmbering to place a1l claims approximately in ck onological order. W itt's claims against other defendants regarding hismedicalcare are notlisted here. Motionsforsummaryjudgmentregarding such claimswillbe addressed in aseparatem emoranddlm opinion and order. 4 conclusions,and a fonnulaic recitation ofthe elem ents ofa cause ofaction willnotdo.'' Id.at 555.4 M oreover,a courtneed nottiacceptthe legalconclusionsdrawn from thefacts''orGlaccept astrueunwarranted inferences,unreasonable conclusions,orargum ents.'' E.ShoreM . lds..Inc.v. J.D.Assocs.Ltd.P'ship,213F.3d175,180(4thCir.2000). Tostateaclaim tmderj 1983,aplaintiffmustallegeEitheviolation ofarightsecuredby the Constitution and laws ofthe United States,and mustshow thatthe alleged deprivation w as committedbyaperson actingundercolorofstatelam ''W estv.Atkins,487U.S.42,48 (1988). Notably,a plaintiffmustsuo ciently allege a defendant'spersonalactoromission leading to a deprivation ofa federalright. Virmedge v.Gibbs,550 F.2d 926,928 (4th Cir.1977) (GThe doctrineofrespondeatsuperiorhasnoapplication''in j1983action). B . InitialM atters State officials,in theiroftkialcapacities,cnnnotbe sued under j1983 for monetary dnmages. See W illv. 'M ich. Dep'tofStatePolice,491U.S.58 (1989). Thus,the courtwill grantthe m otion to dism iss as to a11such claim s. W itthasalso sued these defendants in their individualcapacities,however. The courtwillalso grantthe m otion to dismiss as to any claim thatthese defendants denied W itt appropriate medical treatment on Septem ber 24, 2015. As security and administrative officials,these defendantswere entitled to rely on the medicaljudgmentand expertiseofthenursewho assessedW itt'sinjudeson September24,2015,and decided thathe did notrequire immediate treatment.See Shnkka v.Smith,71 F.3d 162,167 (4th Cir.1995) (citingM iltierv.Beom,896F.2d848,854(4thCir.1990)). 4 n e courthas omitted internalquotation marks, alterations,and citations here and throughout this opinion,unlessothem isenoted. 5 M oreover,the courtmust dism iss W itt's claim s ofpolicy violations. State oflicials' failtlre to follow state prison policies orprocedures do notnm otmtto constitutionalviolations, and,therefore,suchactionsalonearenotactionabletmderj1983.SeeUnitedStatesv.Caceres, 440U.S.741,752-55(1978);Ricciov.Cty.ofFairfax,907F.2d 1459,1469 (4th Cir.1990)(G:If state 1aw grants more procedm alrights than the Constim tion would othem ise requge,a state's failtlreto abideby thatlaw isnotafederaldueprocessissue.''). Thus,W itthasno actionable j1983 claim againstM s.W atford forviolating policy by standing on the sidewalk without secmity oftk ers. Similarly,Gtinmates have no constimtionalentitlem entordue processinterest in accesstoagrievanceprocedme.'' Bookerv.'S.C.Dep'tofCon..,855F.3d 533,541(4th Cir. 2017).Assuch,an inmatecannotbringaj1983claim thatofficialsinadequatelyinvestigateda grievance orgave inaccurate responsesto a grievance or an appeal. The courtwillgrant the defendants'motion to dismiss as to any claim thatthey did not comply with a provision ofa prison policy orthegrievanceprocedures. C. Supervisors'Duty to Protect The Eighth Am endm ent guarantees prisoners freedom from cruel and tmusual ptmishment. U.S.Const.amend.VIII, j3. Under this principle,prison oftkials have an Elobligatlionqtotakereasonablemeasurestoguaranteeinmatesafety,''includingadutytoprotect them from hazardoussituations. Makdessiv.Fields,789 F.3d 126,132 (4th Cir.2015). To succeed tmdera j1983 claim thatpdson offkialsfailed to protectan inmate 9om hnrm (by otherofficersorinmates),in violation ofthe Eighth Amendment,an inmate muststate facts showingthat(i)objectively,theprisonerwasincarceratedtmderconditionsposing asubstantial risk ofserioushann,and (ii)yubjectively,theofficialhadaçt:sufficiently culpablestateofmind' tobeheld liable,''nnmely,the stateofGlçdeliberateindifference'''to thesubstantialrisk ofserious 6 hnrm. Id.at133. Forpurposesoftllisopinion,thecourtwillpresllmethatthephysicalinjudes W ittincurred on Septemher24,2015,weresuo cientlyserioustomeettheobjectivefacetofthis standard. Proving deliberateindifference isdio cultand requiresshowing ism orethan ordinary lack ofduecarefortheprisoner'sinterestsorsafety,''and tGmorethan merenegligence.'' Id. G:(A1n oo cial's failure to alleviate a significantrisk that he should have perceived but did not,... cannot (constimteqinfliction ofplnishment-'' Fannerv.Brennan,511U.S.825,838 (1994). Specifically, an oo cial is deliberately indifferent Stonly if he know s that inm ates face a substantialrisk ofsedousharm and disregardsthatrisk by failing to takereasonable measuresto abateit''Id.at847. W ittseekstohold M s.W atford,MajorRussell,W ardenW oodson,andltA Ponton liable based on their supervisory responsibilities regarding inm ates'safety at Augusta. Supervisory officialsmaynotbeheldvicmiously liableunderj1983fortheunconstitutionalconductoftheir subordinates,however. Ashcroftv.lqbal, 556 U .S.662,676 , ( 2009). To hold one ofthese officials liable for others' actions, W itt must establish (1) that the defendant knew a subordinate'sconductposedaStpervasiveand tmreasonable''riskofconstitutionalinjuryto W itt and that the defendant's llnreasonably inadequate response to that risk som ehow caused the violationofW itt'sconstitutionalrights,Shaw v.Stroud,13F.3d791,799 (4th Cir.1994);or(2) thatdtconductdirectly causing thedeprivation wasdoneto effectuatean officialpolicy orcustom forwhich (thedefendant)wasresponsible.'' Striclderv.W aters,989F.2d 1375,1387 (4th Cir. 1993). W ittmakes none ofthese showings. He doesnotallege thatM ajorRussell,W arden W oodson,or1lA Ponton waspresentdudng the incidenton September24,2015. He also states 7 no facts showing thatany particularpolicy or practice enforced by any ofthese defendants or M s.W atford caused Sgt Redm an to actashe did thatday. Finally,W ittdoesnotdescribe any prior incidents of sim ilar circtunstances causing hnrm that would have putthese supervisory oY cialson noticeofa signitk antrisk thatW ittwould beharmedashewas. W ittapparentlyblnmesM s.W atfordforhisinjuries,becauseifshehadnotbeen standing on the sidewalk withoutsecurity officersnearby (in violation ofpolicy),W ittwould nothave m oved toward her,and Sgt Redm an would nothave intercepted lzim by using force. The court fm ds nothing in the record showing that M s.W atford knew her actions that day created Gça substantialrisk''thatW ittwould sufferseriousharm . W ithoutalleging facts demonstrating her knowledge of such a risk,W itt as not stated a claim that she was deliberately indifferent. Fnrm er,511 U.S.at 847. Rather,llis allegations againstM s.W atford present,atthe most,a clnim ofnegligencethatdoesnotimplicatehis constitutionalrightsand isnotactionable tmder j1983. 1d.at133. Forthe statedreasons,the courtwillgrantthemotion to dismissasto a1l W itt's claims that the supervisory offcials failed to protect him f' rom the use of force on September24, 2015.5 D .The Investigation and Crim inalComplaint W itt's contentions about the prison's investigation of the September 24 incident,and' about som e defendants falsifying docllm ents or withholding inform ation from the local magistrte,arefarfrom clearin W itt'scomplaint.Theseclae sapparently restonthefollowing facts. W itt's inform alcohp laint form stated thaton Septem ber 24,he w as ptm ched and kicked intheface,hism outh wasbleeding inside,hisforehead wasItbusted open''intwo spots,and Sgt. S W ittdoesnotassertthatM s. W atford couldhaveintervenedon hisbehalfaAerthe offkers'useofforce began thatday,and thecourtfindsno such claim arising 9om W itt'sallegationsaboutthisdefendant. SeeRandall v.PrinceGeorae'sCntv..MD.,302 F.3d 188,203-04 (4th Cir.2002)(holdingthatofscialmay beliableunder 51983,on a theory ofbystanderliability,ifshe:(1)knowsthata fellow oftker isviolating an individual's constitutionalrigh/;(2)hasare%onableopportunitytopreventtheharm;and(3)choosesnottoact). 8 Redman G4used handcuffsas(aqweapon to cutopen both''ofW itt'sm istsand ankles. Compl. Ex.1,at 1,ECF No. The Segregation intake ntlrse (nota defendant)described W itt's injuries thatday as çGabrasions to (leftj temple,grightj lower lip inside,bilateral wrist and bilateralnnkles''and llsomenllmbnessin lleftlwrist-'' P1.'sResp.Ex.,at1,ECF No.56-1. In respondingtoW itt'sintbrmalcomplaintform,M ajorRussellwrotethatGûnoneoftheinjtlriesthat you arestating wasfotmdwhen you weretakento seg.''J.IL.Reviewing tllisresponse,W arden W oodson m ote atLevel1,çGYourmedicaltreatmentform doesn'tstatethe severity ofinjuries thatyou are stating in yourcomplaintform ,''and in hisLevel11response,RA Ponton stated that ttltqheinvestigationrevealednoevidenceto supportyotlrallegations.''J#-.at8,11.Asthçcourt understands W itt's claim s about these facts, he contends that in a conspiratorial attempt to prevent Redman f' rom being criminally prosecuted,M ajor Russell, W arden W oodson,1tA. Ponton, and Investigator Lokey lied about the extent of W itt's injmies in these written grievance responsesand in Lokey'sinvestigation report(which isnotin therecord),and that they failed to order reinvestigation after W itt reported the cover-up. The couh fnds no constitutionalclaim stated here. First,W itt's allegationsdo notstate any claim thathe wasdeprived ofllis constitutional righttoseekcriminalchargesagainstRedmanorothers.A citizen'srightto(judicialprocedures to redress any claim ed wrongs''is lim ited to the ability to tGset in m otion the governm ental machinery ...andbring Ellisqcomplaintstotheattention''ofjudicialofficers,totiseekther est ofanother.''Leekev.Timmerm an,454U.S.83,87(1981).W ittassertsthathewmsabletol5le a crim inalcomplaint to the magistrate about Redm an's actions on September 24,2015,that triggered som e investigation by state authorities. Furthennore,W ittdoes notallege thatany of the defendantsinterfered with the information thatW itthim selfprovided to the m agistrate. See 9 id.(suggesting possible civilclaim where defendants interfered with plaintiff'stransmittalof infonnationtomagistrateregardingcriminalcomplaint). Second,W ittwasnotdeprived ofany constimtionally protected rightbecause no prison oo cial was cdminally prosecuted for what happened to llim on September 24, 2015. An individualhasno constimtionalrightto,oranyjudicially cognizableinterestin,theprosecution ornon-prosecution ofanotherperson. Linda R.S.v.Richard D.,410 U.S.614,619 (1973). Consequently,hehasno j 1983claim againstanyprisonoftkialfortheinformationprovidedto the state prosecutor or the m agistrate aboutthe incident at issue,in cozmection with W itt's criminalcomplaint.Leeke,454U.S.at87.Similarly,W itthasnoactionablej1983claim based on the intem al hwtstigation proceedings tmder state regulations or the outcome of that investigation. In any event the court fmds no evidence yf falsification of infbrmation to protect Redm an. The defendants' statements,in the grievance docllm ents to which W ittpoints,are consistentwiththeSegregation nurse'sdescription ofW itt'sinjtlriesasabrasions,notrequiring im mediate treatment. As stated,these defendants could rightfully rely on m edical staff to determineand recordthe natureofan inmate'sphysicalinjmiesand theappropriate course of care. M iltier,896 F.2d at854. M oreover,the security defendants could also rightfully include and consider the nurse's assessment of the severity of W itt's injmies as a factor in the hwestigation as to whether or not Redm an and the other oftk ers took the actions W itthad alleged. Finally,W itt's allegations do notstate a viable conspiracy claim against anyone tmder j 1983.Toestablish such aclaim,aplaintiffmustdemonstratethatthedefendantsttactedjointly in concertand that som e overt act was done irifurtherance of the conspiracy,''resulting in 10 deprivation ofafederalright. Glassman v.Arlington Cnty..Va.,628 F.3d 140,130 (4th Cir. 2010). Asthe courthasalready found,W ittfailsto state any claim thathe was deprived of constitutionaldghtsrelatedto M scriminalcomplaintorthe intem alinvestigation.M oreover,his contentionsthatthedefendantsacted togetherorintended to comm itmly constitutionalviolation aremerelyconclusory speculation. Hinklev.CityofClarksburz,W .Va.,81F.3d416,422 (4th Cir.1996)(fnding no claim whereallegationswere Gtnothing morethan rnnk speculation and conjecture''anddidnotshow anyone'sçEintenttocommitantmlawfulobjective').Thecourtwill grantthe defendants'motion to dism issas to W itt's claim sofconspiracy to falsify information orto othem iseinterferewith theinternalinvestigation orwith W itt'scrim inalcomplaint. E. Excessive Force Asstated,thedefendants'motion doesnotarguethatW itt'sclaim againstSgt.Redm an in hisindividualcapacity foruseofexcessiveforce should be dismissed underRule 12(b)(6)as insuo cientto state a possibleEighth Amendmentclaim . Rather,the m otion concedesthatthis claim willneedtoberesolvedatthesllmmaryjudgmentstageorattrial.Thecourtagrees. 111. C onclusion Forthe stated reasons,thecourtconcludesthatthedefendants'partialm otion to dism iss mustbegranted.An appropriateorderwillissueherewith. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this m emorandum opinion and accompanying ordertoplaintiffandto cotmselofrecord forthedefendants. ENTER:This rr m day ofseptember, 2018. SeniorU nited States DistrictJudge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
