Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia addresses a pro se Virginia inmate’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related Virginia tort theories, including excessive force, bystander liability, conditions of confinement, due process, conspiracy, and property destruction. The court grants the appearing defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses most claims, while allowing excessive-force and assault-and-battery claims against Defendant Floreska to remain pending.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Floreska and Blount.
- Whether the complaint stated an assault-and-battery claim against Floreska and failure-to-intervene assault-and-battery claims against White and Blount.
- Whether the complaint stated an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement or deliberate-indifference claim based on the alleged assault, five-hour confinement, and denial of shower shoes.
- Whether the allegation of a false disciplinary charge stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim.
- Whether the transfer from State Farm Correctional Center to Augusta Correctional Center violated procedural due process or supported a § 1983 conspiracy claim.
- Whether destruction of personal property supported First Amendment retaliation or Fourteenth Amendment due process claims.
- Whether the generalized negligence allegation stated a claim.
- Whether termination from prison employment implicated a protected liberty or property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holdings
- The complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Floreska because it alleged that Floreska, without provocation, attempted to trip Ferreer while Ferreer was handcuffed and injured him.
- The complaint failed to state an excessive-force claim against Blount because it did not allege that Blount used any force.
- The complaint plausibly stated Virginia assault-and-battery claims against Floreska.
- The complaint failed to state a bystander-liability claim against Blount because it did not allege that Blount had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the allegedly sudden use of force.
- The complaint failed to state assault-and-battery claims against White and Blount because it did not allege that either defendant caused harmful or offensive contact with Ferreer.
- The complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement or deliberate-indifference claim against White, Long, and Dorset.
- The complaint failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim based solely on an allegedly false disciplinary charge.
- The complaint failed to state either a § 1983 conspiracy claim or a procedural due process claim concerning Ferreer's transfer from SFCC to ACC.
- The complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because it identified no protected First Amendment activity and no causal connection between protected activity and the property destruction.
- The complaint failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for destruction of personal property because Virginia provides adequate post-deprivation remedies.
- The generalized negligence allegation failed to state a claim because the complaint identified neither the responsible defendants nor the acts or omissions constituting negligence.
- The complaint failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on termination from prison employment because Ferreer had no protected interest in that employment.
Key quotations
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) will be GRANTED, and all claims raised against all Defendants except for Defendant Floreska and “Unknown Staff” will be DISMISSED.” (18)
Factual background
Ferreer alleged that correctional officials placed him in restricted housing for approximately five hours without a disciplinary infraction, later escorted him back toward restricted housing, and that Floreska attempted to trip him while he was handcuffed, causing injury. He also alleged that he was denied shower shoes, transferred from State Farm Correctional Center to Augusta Correctional Center, and lost personal property during the transfer. Ferreer asserted constitutional and tort claims concerning excessive force, failure to intervene, confinement conditions, false disciplinary charges, transfer procedures, retaliation, property loss, negligence, and termination from prison employment.
Procedural history
Ferreer, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed an eleven-claim § 1983 action against prison officials and asserted related Virginia tort claims. Defendants Long, White, Waller, Farina, Blount, and Dorset moved to dismiss, while Ferreer filed no opposition after receiving Roseboro notice. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims against all defendants except Floreska and Unknown Staff; Claims One and Two against Floreska remained pending, and the court ordered service on Floreska.