Walker v. Raimondo
1:15-cv-00087
D.R.I.Sep 11, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Calvin Walker, an ACI inmate, sued Governor Gina Raimondo under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the Rhode Island DOC operates a racially discriminatory policy denying Black and Latino inmates access to the prison law library and courts; he sought injunctive relief and monetary damages.
- Walker previously filed similar actions in state courts (Rhode Island Supreme Court mandamus in 2009; Superior Court TRO/PI in 2010) which were denied or dismissed; the complaint in this federal action was filed March 6, 2015.
- Governor Raimondo moved to dismiss, arguing claims are time-barred, the pleading fails Rule 8(a), injunctive relief is improper, and official-capacity §1983 claims against the Governor are not cognizable.
- The magistrate judge took judicial notice of prior state-court filings, found the federal claims largely repeat prior, older allegations, and concluded the §1983 claims accrued prior to the three-year limitations window.
- The magistrate judge also found Walker’s submission confusing and noncompliant with Rule 8(a), that he failed to meet the standards for preliminary injunctive relief, and that official-capacity §1983 claims against the Governor are insufficient under Will v. Michigan.
- Recommendation: Grant the Motion to Dismiss with prejudice and enter final judgment for the Defendant; objections to the R&R must be filed within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness (statute of limitations) | Walker alleges ongoing denial of access to courts dating back to 2006–2010; seeks relief in 2015. | Claims accrued earlier and are barred by Rhode Island's 3-year statute of limitations for §1983 actions. | Claims accrued before 2012 and are time-barred; dismissal recommended. |
| Pleading sufficiency (Rule 8(a)) | Walker’s filings describe alleged constitutional violations and requested relief. | The complaint is long, repetitive, and fails to give fair notice of claims as required by Rule 8(a). | Filing fails Rule 8(a); pleadings are confusing and do not permit proper response. |
| Preliminary injunctive relief | Seeks affirmative relief ordering ACI to provide additional access (computers, telephones, reports). | Plaintiff cannot show irreparable harm, likelihood of success, or that injunction preserves the status quo. | Walker did not meet the four-factor test for injunctive relief; request denied. |
| Official-capacity §1983 claim against the Governor | Seeks relief from Governor in official capacity for alleged policies. | A state or its officials sued in their official capacity are not "persons" under §1983. | Official-capacity claim not cognizable under §1983 (Will v. Michigan); claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayala-Sepulveda v. Municipality of San German, 671 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.) (statute of limitations for §1983 claims drawn from state personal-injury law)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must give fair notice and state a claim plausibly)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (states and officials sued in official capacity are not "persons" under §1983)
- CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Prop., Inc., 48 F.3d 618 (1st Cir.) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo)
- Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4 (1st Cir.) (four-factor preliminary injunction test)
- Educadores Puertorriquenos en Accion v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.) (Rule 8(a) requires minimal but meaningful factual allegations)