Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hoglan v. Robinson

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

September 19, 2014

DOUGLAS A. HOGLAN, Plaintiff,
v.
A. DAVID ROBINSON, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JACKSON L. KISER, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff Douglas A. Hoglan, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a verified Complaint and amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, presenting fifteen claims.[1] Plaintiff names various staff of the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") as defendants. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff responded, making the matter ripe for disposition.[2] After reviewing the record, I deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to claim 7 and direct Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment about that claim; deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice as to Plaintiff's exhausted claims of retaliation due to the pendency of claim 7, and grant the motion for summary judgment as to all other claims.

I.

On January 30, 2009, Plaintiff was sentenced to fifty-one years' imprisonment[3] after he pleaded guilty to two counts of adulterate drink to injure, two counts of adulterate food, three counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of unlawful filming/photography, and two counts of possession of child pornography.[4] Commonwealth v. Hoglan, No. CR08000102, CR08000417, CR07000982, CR07001101 (Circuit Ct. Stafford Cnty.) (available via Virginia Circuit Court Case Information, http://ewsocisl.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/circuit.jsp); see, e.g., Fed.R.Evid. R. 201(b)(2); In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig. , 533 F.Supp.2d 615, 631-33 & nn.14-15 (E.D. La. 2008); Williams v. Long , 585 F.Supp.2d 679, 686-88 & n.4 (D. Md. 2008). Soon thereafter, Plaintiff was transferred to the custody of VDOC officials.

While incarcerated at the VDOC's Pocahontas State Correctional Facility ("PSCC"), Plaintiff attempted to receive various books[5], flyers depicting nude women and the lascivious display of female genitalia[6], commercial photos of nude or scantily-dressed women, and periodicals[7] from sources outside the prison, but staff would intercept delivery and prevent Plaintiff's possession of these items pursuant to either PSCC Warden Young's directive that no PSCC inmate may order commercial photographs or some other VDOC or PSCC policy. Plaintiff unsuccessfully pursued administrative remedies with PSCC and VDOC officials.

In December 2011, defendant Boyd, the Senior Psychologist at PSCC, created a Case Plan Agreement ("treatment plan") that, inter alia, prohibited Plaintiff "from viewing or possessing any publications, materials, or photos which may be detrimental to the treatment plan or that may promote deviant behaviors including sexually deviant behaviors."[8] Case Plan Agt., ECF No. 47, page id. no. 820. Plaintiff signed the treatment plan on December 16, 2011, but later believed that it was created as retaliation for filing grievances about his inability to receive nude images and books. Plaintiff's continued attempts to receive pornographic photos, flyers, pamphlets, and books allegedly prompted PSCC staff to retaliate by searching his cell, seizing images of children and women, and convicting Plaintiff of various institutional infractions for violating the terms of the treatment plan.[9] Plaintiff believes these acts were unlawful retaliation because Plaintiff had been allowed to receive such items during his prior two years in the VDOC and did not help Boyd develop the treatment plan.

The institutional convictions ultimately led to Plaintiff's ninety-day transfer to the PSCC Structured Living Unit ("SLU"), which is a housing assignment that is more controlled than general population but less than segregation. See VDOC Operating Procedure ("OP") 841.7. After arriving at the SLU on November 6, 2012, Plaintiff no longer had physical access to the PSCC law library although he could still communicate with the private attorney assigned to PSCC and could request specific legal materials from his unit counselor and the inmate law-library clerks. Plaintiff found this system to be less convenient and effective than if he had physical access to the law library.

Plaintiff argues fifteen multi-faceted claims involved with his incarceration at the PSCC, enumerated[10] as follows:

Claim 4. Young, Garman, A. Robinson, Collins, Copeland, and Aldridge violated Plaintiff's First Amendment right to receive information in prison and the Fourteenth Amendment[11] right to due process by not adhering to the "Specific Criteria for Publication Disapproval" outlined in OP 803.2, "Incoming Publications, " when preventing Plaintiff's receipt of the book The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Claim 5. Mould violated Plaintiff's First Amendment right to receive publications in prison and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process when Mould screened and disapproved flyers "as a group" instead of each flyer, and Turner, Bivens, and G. Robinson obstructed administrative remedies by denying grievances about Mould.

Claim 6. Walz, Rowelette, and Hinkle violated Plaintiff's First Amendment right to receive publications in prison and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by disapproving and refusing to screen commercial photographs on a "case-by-case" basis.

Claim 7. Young, Walz, Hinkle, Garman, A. Robinson, and Clarke violated Plaintiff's First Amendment right to receive publications in prison and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by banning all commercial photographs, including those with adult content, and G. Robinson obstructed administrative remedies.

Claim 8. Turner and members of the PRC violated Plaintiff's First Amendment right to receive publications in prison and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by denying Plaintiff receipt of publications based on "role playing, " and G. Robinson obstructed administrative remedies.

Claim 9. Hall, Boyd, and Davis violated Plaintiffs First Amendment right to receive publications in prison and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by enacting a treatment plan that prohibited him from possessing various publications, Boyd created the treatment plan as retaliation, and Turner, Bivens, and Robinson obstructed administrative remedies.

Claim 10. Hall, Boyd, and Ziegler retaliated against Plaintiff for filing this lawsuit by charging him with possession of contraband. Bandy and Walz subsequently violated the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by not conducting a fair disciplinary hearing and by affirming the institutional conviction on appeal, respectively.

Claim 11. Hall, Cartwright, and Sutphin retaliated against Plaintiff for filing this lawsuit. Cartwright violated the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process when he seized Plaintiff's property and did not return it, and Turner, Bivens, Walz, and Hinkle obstructed administrative remedies.

Claim 12. Boyd charged Plaintiff with possession of contraband as retaliation for filing grievances and this lawsuit, violated the First Amendment right to receive publications in prison, and violated the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by seizing Plaintiff's personal photos. Bandy and Young violated due process by not conducting a fair disciplinary hearing and affirming ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.