Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-6109
DOUGLAS FAUCONIER,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
HAROLD
W.
CLARKE,
Director
for
the
Department
of
Corrections;
JEFFERY
N.
DILLMAN,
Warden
of
Powhatan
Correctional
Center;
LUKE
ISIAH
BLACK,
Institutional
Programs Manager; LAKENESHA SPENCER, Programs Assignment
Reviewer,
Defendants Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01692-TSE-JFA)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Fauconier, an inmate in the custody of the Virginia
Department
of
Corrections
(the
VDOC),
appeals
the
district
(the
ADA)
and
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
The
court
I.
In December 2014, Fauconier filed his pro se complaint in
the Eastern District of Virginia, attaching and making a part
thereof
certain
proceedings.
records
of
his
underlying
VDOC
grievance
the
factual
background
for
this
proceeding.
See
while
(Powhatan).
VDOC
housed
inmate
at
since
the
2004,
Powhatan
held
several
Correctional
work
Center
See
J.A. 5. 1
In late 2010,
for
his
D-8
houseman
job,
but
the
He
prison
See J.A. 6.
medical status,
however,
prior
to
his
2010
while
hospital
working
visit.
as
houseman
Nevertheless,
in
since
D-8
that
that
the
VDOCs
operating
procedures
Black also
justified
work
programs
on
account
of
his
medical
status
no
alleged
serious
that
offered
he
by
modifications.
impediments.
was
the
Id.
See
clearly
VDOC,
J.A.
qualified
with
or
17.
to
Moreover,
perform
without
any
he
job
reasonable
See
Id.
Dillman
Reviewer
was
required
to
consider
Fauconiers
to
response.
Powhatan
the
On
VDOCs
October
facility,
Regional
22,
2014,
Fauconier
was
Ombudsman,
but
received
no
after
VDOC
closed
the
the
transferred
to
the
Augusta
filing
his
pro
se
complaint
against
four
VDOC
officials:
See J.A. 8.
declaration
Fauconiers
rights
that
have
been
violated,
stop
discriminating
against
him,
and
damages.
See
id.
01692 (E.D. Va. Dec. 31, 2014), ECF No. 4 (the Opinion).
In
Regarding the
constitutional
process
right
programs.
dimension,
to
because
participate
in
prisoners
vocational
have
or
no
due
educational
Fauconiers
complaint was thus dismissed with prejudice, and his motions for
appointment of counsel and for permission to proceed in forma
pauperis were denied as moot.
appeal,
and
we
possess
jurisdiction
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
1291. 6
II.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under 28
U.S.C.
1915A
for
failure
to
state
claim,
utilizing
the
To
marks omitted).
III.
A review of a prisoners complaint against a governmental
entity or officer under 28 U.S.C. 1915A presents the first
opportunity for a federal district court to separate cognizable
claims from colorless cavils.
liberally,
but
also
to
have
each
of
his
claims
Construed
three
claims
properly,
in
Fauconiers
support
of
his
pro
se
complaint
requests
for
alleges
declaratory,
Eleventh
Amendment
Importantly, it is settled
immunity
the
sole
basis
for
the
to
requests
Md.,
Inc.
for
v.
prospective
Pub.
Serv.
injunctive
Commn,
535
relief.
U.S.
See
635,
645
appeal,
Fauconier
does
not
challenge
the
district
Second, he maintains
On this
Fauconiers
first
contention,
we
observe
that,
relief,
the
district
10
court
did
not
assess
the
viability
of
such
relief.
See
Opinion
3.
With
regard
to
1983
equal
asserts
that
protection
the
claim,
defendants
even
violated
though
the
the
Equal
See J.A. 4.
dismissal
of
Fauconiers
complaint.
Specifically,
they
argue
protection
that
the
claim,
complaint
and
that,
fails
Additionally, the
in
to
any
state
event,
1983
they
are
insufficiency
of
the
equal
protection
claim,
and
See Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 203 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Because
the
complaints
11
contentions
were
not
regarding
addressed
defendants
injunctive
by
mootness
the
and
relief
district
qualified
and
court,
immunity
equal
and
protection
because
the
contentions
are
being presented for the first time on appeal, our most prudent
disposition
is
to
vacate
and
remand,
and
thus
allow
the
See
Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d 686, 702 (4th Cir. 2007) (en
banc). 8
IV.
Pursuant
remand
for
to
such
the
foregoing,
other
and
we
further
vacate
the
proceedings
judgment
as
may
and
be
appropriate.
VACATED AND REMANDED
12