United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION (GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
E. Hudson Senior United States District Judge.
Lopez-Flores, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauper is, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
Lopez-Flores names as defendants, Harold W. Clarke, the
Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
("VDOC") and Israel Hamilton, the Warden of
Haynesville Correctional Center. Lopez-Flores's claims
flow from his confinement and adjudication as a sexually
violent predator pursuant to section 37.2-900 of the Virginia
Code, the Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA").
Specifically, Lopez-Flores contends that:
Claim 1 Defendants violated Lopez-Flores's rights under
the (a) Double Jeopardy Clause and (b) the Due Process Clause
by "holding the plaintiff (now a civil detainee) beyond
his mandatory prison release date in the same facility ...
under the same punitive conditions as when the plaintiff was
serving his criminal sentence." (Compl. ¶
Lopez-Flores further complains that Defendants refuse to
"transfer the plaintiff to a civil facility... and
provide the plaintiff with proper sexual offender therapy
Claim 2 Defendants violated Lopez-Flores's rights under
the Due Process Clause by failing to afford him the rights
enumerated under Section 37.2-400(A) of the Virginia Code for
individuals detained under the SVPA. (Id. at 11-13.)
Claim 3 Section 37.2-906(A) is (a) "void for
vagueness"; (b) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; and,
(c) violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. (Id. at
demands monetary damages against Defendants for Claims 1 and
2. (Id. at 21.) Additionally, with respect to Claims
1 and 2, Lopez-Flores requests injunctive relief by:
(a) transfer[ring] the plaintiff to a civil facility which
provides the plaintiff with the care and treatment,
consistent with the objectives of any legitimate SVP
commitment act; (b) restore the plaintiff his rights and
privileges ... as particularly stated in Va. Code 37.2-400;
(c) segregate the plaintiff from the sight and sound of the
other prisoners at all times, and (d) cease criminally
punishing the plaintiff as a criminal convict[.]
(Id.) With respect to Claim 3, Lopez-Flores requests
that the Court "(a) declares the statutory scheme of Va.
Code §§ 37.2-900 et seq. to be unconstitutional and
invalid, and; (b) order that the Virginia General Assembly
re-promulgate the VSVPA to be consistent in all manners with
the Supreme Law of the Land." (Id.)
reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 16) will be granted in part and denied in part.
Standard for Summary Judgment
judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). It is the responsibility of the party
seeking summary judgment to inform the court of the basis for
the motion and to identify the parts of the record which
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the
burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary
judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal
quotation marks omitted). When the motion is properly
supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings
and, by citing affidavits or "'depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate
'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.'" Id. (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c) and 56(e) (1986)).
"Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty
to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a
party's opposition to summary judgment." Forsyth
v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting
Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915
& n.7 (5th Cir. 1992)); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(3) ("The court need consider only the cited
support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants
submit the affidavit of James E. Parks, the Director of
Offender Management Services for the VDOC ("Parks
Aff." ECF No. 17-1) and submissions from
Lopez-Flores's Sexually Violent Predator commitment
proceeding (ECF No. 17-2). Lopez-Flores has not responded. In
light of the foregoing submissions, the following facts are
established for the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court
draws all permissible inferences in favor of Lopez-Flores.