652 F. App'x 217
4th Cir.2016Background
- Douglas Fauconier, a Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) inmate with myasthenia gravis, was repeatedly denied placement in prison work programs after a 2010 hospitalization despite previously holding a houseman job while carrying the same medical work code (“D”).
- Fauconier filed VDOC grievances alleging Title II ADA discrimination; VDOC officials (Warden Dillman, Programs Manager Black, Programs Assignment Reviewer Spencer, and Director Clarke) denied relief citing VDOC Operating Procedure 841.2, which directs consideration of medical classification among other factors for work assignments.
- In December 2014 Fauconier sued the four officials in their individual and official capacities under Title II of the ADA and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection), seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief; he proceeded pro se and sought IFP and counsel.
- The district court screened and dismissed the entire complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim, concluding prisoners have no due process right to vocational programs and that the Eleventh Amendment barred the ADA Title II claim; it did not analyze injunctive relief viability or the equal protection claim.
- On appeal, Fauconier challenged the district court’s failure to address injunctive relief and the overlooked equal protection claim and argued the Eleventh Amendment bar was misapplied; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of injunctive relief under ADA/§1915A | Fauconier seeks prospective injunctive relief to stop discrimination and contends it survives despite his transfer | Defendants argue transfer to another facility moots injunctive claims | Court: District court did not address injunctive relief; remand so district court may decide mootness first |
| Application of Eleventh Amendment to ADA Title II damages claim | Fauconier contends Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective injunctive relief and ADA damages against the state raise Fourteenth Amendment questions | Defendants relied on Eleventh Amendment to justify dismissal of ADA claim | Court: Eleventh Amendment analysis was inadequately applied; vacated and remanded (prospective relief not barred; damages against state distinct) |
| Equal Protection claim under § 1983 | Fauconier alleges discriminatory exclusion from work programs based on disability implicates equal protection | Defendants contend claim fails or entitles them to qualified immunity (raised on appeal) | Court: District court overlooked equal protection claim; remand for district court to consider it in first instance |
| Whether appellate court should affirm on new grounds (mootness/qualified immunity) | Fauconier did not concede those defenses; asks for full consideration of claims below | Defendants request affirmance on grounds not raised below (mootness, insufficiency, qualified immunity) | Court: Appellate court will not affirm on unraised grounds; remand so district court may address them first |
Key Cases Cited
- Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635 (2002) (Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective injunctive relief against state officials)
- De’lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing pro se inmate complaints and Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility review)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (ADA Title II damages claim requires inquiry whether conduct also violates Fourteenth Amendment)
- Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews, not decides, issues of first view; defer to district court on initial factfinding)
- Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2007) (vacating and remanding where district court failed to address claims so it can consider them in the first instance)