Earl Thomas Brady v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Earl Thomas Brady’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. The court rejected or found inadequately pleaded claims involving First Amendment retaliation, due process, whistleblower protection, disparate treatment, restrictive housing, false imprisonment, prison policies, and defamation.

Holdings

1. A § 1983 plaintiff must plead that each government-official defendant, through that defendant's own individual actions, violated the Constitution; defendants against whom no factual allegations are made may be dismissed without prejudice.
2. A bare allegation that a correctional officer received a disciplinary report and colluded with another officer, without supporting factual allegations, does not state a plausible § 1983 claim.
3. A prisoner asserting First Amendment retaliation must allege protected activity, an adverse action affecting First Amendment rights, and a causal relationship between the protected activity and the adverse action; the complaint failed because it did not adequately allege causation.
4. The filing of a false disciplinary report or charge, without more, generally does not state a constitutional claim under § 1983.
5. Inmates do not have a constitutional right to a prison job, and deprivation of a prison job does not state an independent constitutional due process claim.
6. The federal Whistleblower Protection Act applies to federal employees and does not provide a claim to a state prisoner.
7. A disparate-treatment claim requires allegations that the plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated persons; Brady's conclusory claim failed because he alleged no facts supporting that comparison.
8. A prisoner asserting that a formal due process hearing was required must allege facts showing how a particular defendant personally denied the hearing; Brady failed to do so.
9. A bare allegation that seven days in restrictive housing constituted cruel and unusual punishment does not state an Eighth Amendment claim.
10. A prisoner already in custody cannot state a cognizable false-imprisonment claim based solely on being placed in restrictive housing for an additional period.
11. Prison officials' failure to follow internal prison policies is not actionable under § 1983 unless the alleged breach also rises to the level of a constitutional violation.
12. Defamation does not state a § 1983 claim absent injury to a constitutionally protected right; Brady failed to allege such injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim.
2. Whether Brady had a constitutional due process right to retain his prison job.
3. Whether the complaint stated a claim under the federal Whistleblower Protection Act.
4. Whether the complaint stated a disparate-treatment or equal-protection claim.
5. Whether the alleged transfer to restrictive housing stated a procedural due process claim.
6. Whether seven days in restrictive housing stated an Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim.
7. Whether a prisoner already in custody can state a false-imprisonment claim based on placement in restrictive housing.
8. Whether alleged violations of internal prison policies support a § 1983 claim.
9. Whether a false disciplinary report supported a § 1983 defamation or slander claim.
10. Whether claims against defendants not connected to factual allegations should be dismissed.

Disposition

dismissed