James Roudabush, Jr. v. F. Milano
714 F. App'x 208
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff James Roudabush, an ADC inmate, alleged widespread racial discrimination at Alexandria Detention Center favoring Black inmates over White and Hispanic inmates (e.g., preferential outside food, trustee-list placement, recreation times, cell selection).
- Roudabush claims he was moved from a cell with TV to an inferior cell so a Black inmate could have it; he alleges repeated complaints beginning April 2013 and subsequent threats by Black inmates.
- On September 26, 2013, Roudabush was transferred to protective custody; he contends this was retaliation and a denial of procedural due process because ADC policy was not followed and no hearing was held.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens against multiple ADC officers and U.S. Marshal personnel; defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the district court dismissed some claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo, construing pro se allegations liberally and applying the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard to determine which claims survived dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection (racial discrimination) | ADC systematically favored Black inmates; Roudabush was denied privileges and moved for a Black inmate | Roudabush’s facts are insufficient; only isolated cell move alleged | Reversed dismissal; allegations (cell choice, recreation, outside food disparities) plausibly state an equal protection claim |
| Civil conspiracy | Defendants conspired to place him in administrative segregation in retaliation for complaints | Claims are conclusory and lack factual detail | Affirmed dismissal; conclusory allegations insufficient |
| Procedural due process (protective custody placement) | Placement violated ADC policy and occurred without a hearing | No plausible factual basis alleging deprivation of due process | Affirmed dismissal; due process claim pleaded conclusorily and fails |
| Dismissal standard / pro se pleading treatment | Pro se status and factual allegations warrant liberal construction | Apply Twombly/Iqbal plausibility and dismiss bare legal conclusions | Court applied de novo review, liberally construed pro se allegations, but required plausible factual detail; resulted in mixed outcome (equal protection survives; other claims dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736 (4th Cir. 2009) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726 (4th Cir. 2002) (elements for equal protection claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- De'lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520 (4th Cir. 2013) (§1915A dismissal standard parallels Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy against federal officers)
Disposition: Affirmed in part (civil conspiracy and due process claims dismissed), reversed in part (equal protection claim revived), and remanded for further proceedings on the equal protection claim.