249 F.Supp.3d 838
W.D. Va.2017Background
- Plaintiff Reginald Latson, a Virginia inmate diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID), alleges prolonged placements in solitary/segregation and denial of appropriate treatment and accommodations at Rappahannock Regional Jail and Marion Correctional Treatment Center (MCTC).
- While housed at Rappahannock (April–June 2014) Latson was placed on suicide watch, tasered, restrained in a Pro-Straint chair for >9 hours, and thereafter kept in isolation with minimal stimulation; VDOC was notified but did not immediately transfer him.
- After transfer to MCTC (June 2014–Feb 2015) Latson alleges repeated, lengthy segregation episodes without stimulus, hearings, or adequate mental-health treatment; disciplinary actions often reflected behaviors tied to his disabilities.
- Latson pleaded guilty to an assault charge arising from the Rappahannock incident, later received a conditional pardon and transfer order to AdvoServ, and alleges retaliatory segregation and privilege revocation after the pardon.
- Claims pleaded: Eighth Amendment (conditions and medical care), Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection), First Amendment (retaliation), ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act; defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for events at Rappahannock (Clarke/VDOC) | Clarke had authority to transfer VDOC-responsible inmates and was notified of Latson’s treatment; failure to transfer shows personal involvement | Rappahannock is locally operated; defendants lacked control and no constitutional right to transfer | Denied dismissal: facts plausibly allege Clarke/VDOC knew or should have known and could have remedied by transfer, so claims survive at pleading stage |
| Statute of limitations for ADA/RA claims | ADA Amendments Act broadened ‘‘disability’’ definition; four-year federal limitations may apply | Virginia’s one-year Disabilities Act limitations (or two-year personal injury) bar the claims | Denied dismissal: limitations question depends on whether claim was made possible by 2008 amendments — not resolvable on pleadings |
| ADA and RA claims — proper defendants & merits | Seeks injunctive/monetary relief against VDOC, Commonwealth and officials; alleges denial of access/ accommodations and discrimination tied to disability | Officials in their official capacities and Commonwealth redundant; MCTC not a suable entity; alleged conduct was disciplinary, not disability-based | Partially granted: dismissed MCTC and Commonwealth; ADA/RA claims against individual officials in official capacity dismissed as duplicative, but ADA and RA claims against VDOC survive; substantive ADA and RA claims sufficiently pleaded to survive motion |
| § 1983 claims (Eighth, Fourteenth, First Amendment) and supervisory liability | Allegations show defendants personally reviewed/approved housing decisions, received notices/letters, and failed to act—demonstrating deliberate indifference and causation | Lack of specific personal involvement, lack of atypical/serious conditions, legitimate penological reasons, and qualified/Eleventh Amendment immunity | Denied dismissal as to Eighth (conditions), Eighth (medical care), Fourteenth procedural due process, and First Amendment retaliation claims as plausibly pleaded against named officials; equal protection claim dismissed; qualified immunity not resolved at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (liberty interest from atypical and significant segregation conditions)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (Title II ADA claims and state sovereign immunity analysis)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (official-capacity suits treated as suits against the entity)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requirement of pleading each government official’s personal involvement)
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (statute-of-limitations / newly enacted statutes tolling rules)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (Title II as §5 enforcement for access-to-courts rights)
- Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219 (Fourth Circuit: Eighth Amendment medical-care deliberate indifference)
- Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (letters as evidence of supervisory knowledge)