Niccokawon Pledger v. Harold W. Clarke, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia ruled on VDOC defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment in Niccokawon Pledger’s § 1983, Americans with Disabilities Act, and state-law tort action. The court granted summary judgment to Harold Clarke on the individual-capacity § 1983 claims and granted summary judgment to Kyle Rosch concerning claims based on the alleged use of excessive force, while denying or reserving other issues without prejudice. Claims arising from the alleged use of force at River North Correctional Center were to proceed to trial, with other claims to be severed into a separate action.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was granted for Clarke because the record contained no evidence that he was personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivations and did not satisfy the elements of supervisory liability.
2. Summary judgment was granted for Rosch on the claim that he failed to protect Pledger from the January 13, 2022 use of force.
3. The motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice as to Pledger's claim that Rosch failed to correct false information in his file and allowed it to be used to confine him in segregation.
4. The motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice as to the theory that officials denied Pledger access to exculpatory video evidence and eyewitness testimony, resulting in a disciplinary conviction and transfer to indefinite segregation at Red Onion.
5. Summary judgment was granted on Pledger's claims against Stanley and MacVean for denial of access to the courts and counsel.
6. The court dismissed the Article IV Privileges and Immunities claim, the equal-protection claim against Stanley and MacVean, official-capacity § 1983 damages claims against Clarke, Rosch, and Anderson, individual-capacity Title II ADA claims, and specified gross-negligence claims.
7. The court severed the disciplinary-proceeding, segregation, accommodation, and related claims against Stanley, Anderson, Manis, Rosch, and Clarke into a separate action and allowed the present case to proceed to trial on the January 13, 2022 force-related claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the record supported summary judgment on Pledger's § 1983 claims against Harold Clarke in his individual capacity based on personal involvement or supervisory liability.
2. Whether the record supported summary judgment on Kyle Rosch's individual-capacity § 1983 claim for failure to protect Pledger from the January 13, 2022 use of force.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on Pledger's due-process claim against Rosch based on failure to correct allegedly false information used in his segregation and security-level decisions.
4. Whether Pledger's disciplinary-hearing due-process claims against A. Stanley, David Anderson, and Carl Manis were cognizable under § 1983 based on denial of exculpatory video and witness evidence followed by transfer to a maximum-security facility.
5. Whether Pledger established actual injury or prejudice for his claims concerning denial of access to the courts and counsel.
6. Whether the complaint stated claims under the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, official-capacity § 1983 damages theories, Title II of the ADA against individuals, and Virginia gross-negligence law.
7. Whether the remaining disciplinary, segregation, accommodation, and use-of-force claims should be severed into separate actions.

Disposition

other