CARY HENDRICK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD CALDWELL, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 7:16CV00095
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION
FEB 0 8 2017
Hon. Glen E. Conrad, Chief United States District Judge
Plaintiffs Cary Hendrick, Bryan Manning, Ryan Williams, Richard Deckerhoff, and Richard Walls bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants Donald Caldwell and Michael Herring, in their official capacities, pursuant to
Background
The following facts, taken from the plaintiffs’ complaint, are accepted as true for purposes of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The named plaintiffs in this matter are homeless individuals who suffer from alcohol use disorder and have been interdicted pursuant to
When after a hearing upon due notice it appears to the satisfaction of the circuit court of any county or city that any person, residing within such county or city, has been convicted of driving any automobile, truck, motorcycle, engine or train while intoxicated or has shown himself to be an habitual drunkard, the court may enter an order of interdiction prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to such person until further ordered.
The statute does not define “habitual drunkard,” and there is no clear standard for removing the label once determined to be such. Compl. ¶¶ 32-33. A person can be interdicted in absentia, and a defendant does not have the right to counsel or trial by jury at the interdiction hearing as it is a civil proceeding. Id. ¶ 19.
It is a Class 1 misdemeanor for an interdicted individual to “consume, purchase or possess, or attempt to consume, purchase or posses, any alcoholic beverage.”
Pursuant to
Plaintiffs challenge the Interdiction Statute, claiming that it violates their rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs bring five claims against defendants.2 Count One alleges that the enforcement of the Interdiction Statute results in cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Count Three alleges deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count Five claims that the Interdiction Statute is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Count Seven alleges deprivation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count Eight requests injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to
Standard of Review
“The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of a complaint.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). When deciding a motion to
Discussion
Defendants make five arguments, four of which are procedural and one of which is substantive, in support of their motion to dismiss: (1) that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes this court from exercising jurisdiction over this case; (2) that plaintiffs have had the opportunity to challenge their interdictions in state court, and those judgments have preclusive effect; (3) that plaintiffs’ request for future equitable relief is not ripe for adjudication; (4) that plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief is barred by the statute of limitations; and (5) that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I. Procedural Arguments
a. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ complaint is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment and is thus barred by Rooker-Feldman. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine arises
The Fourth Circuit recently addressed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and clarified its narrow scope. See Thana, 827 F.3d at 319 (“[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine is narrow and focused....“). Noting that the “distinction between preclusion principles and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can sometimes be subtle,” the Fourth Circuit observed that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “assesses only whether the process for appealing a state court judgment to the Supreme Court under
In the instant case, and in light of the Fourth Circuit‘s most recent clarification of the narrow scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the court does not believe the doctrine applies. While the instant action was filed after the state proceedings ended, the plaintiffs are not “complaining of an injury caused by the state-court judgment and seeking review and rejection of that judgment.” Id. They do not seek to overturn their orders of interdiction or their prior convictions as interdicted individuals. Instead, plaintiffs challenge the statutory scheme—that is, how the Interdiction Statute is applied to them in the future. The court finds that this claim, as pled, is sufficiently independent so as not to act as an impediment to the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 532 (2011) (stating that if the party “presents an independent claim, it is not an impediment to the exercise of federal jurisdiction that the same or a related question was earlier aired between the parties in state court“). The court, however, cannot escape the tension between the state proceedings and the instant action. Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit has determined that Rooker-Feldman is not the appropriate vehicle to manage such tensions. Instead, they are to be examined through the doctrines of preclusion, comity, and abstention. Thana, 827 F.3d at 320 (citing Exxon, 544 U.S. at 292-93).
The court next turns to the question of whether plaintiffs’ claims are procedurally barred under preclusion principles. “Federal courts asked in a § 1983 action to give res judicata effect (in any of the doctrine‘s aspects) to a state court judgment are bound under the Full Faith and Credit Statute,
A party whose claim for relief arising from identified conduct, a transaction, or an occurrence, is decided on the merits by a final judgment, shall be forever barred from prosecuting any second or subsequent civil action against the same opposing party or parties on any claim or cause of action that arises from the same conduct, transaction or occurrence, whether or not the legal theory or rights asserted in the second or subsequent action were raised in the prior lawsuit, and regardless of the legal elements or the evidence upon which any claim in the prior proceeding depended, or the particular remedies sought.
Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:6(a). Whether a subsequent claim involves “the same conduct, transaction or occurrence” depends on whether the claim is based on a different cause of action. Lee, 290 Va. at 248. “[A] cause of action is a set of operative facts which, under the substantive law, may give rise to a right of action.” Roller v. Basic Constr. Co., 238 Va. 321, 327 (1989). “A right of action, on the other hand, ‘is the remedial right accorded to a person to enforce a cause of action and arises only when a person‘s rights are infringed.‘” Lee, 290 Va. at 249. Multiple rights may arise under a single cause of action, but “a wrongful act generally gives rise to only a single indivisible cause of action.”
In the instant case, the plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding future arrests and prosecutions that plaintiffs assert are certain to occur. These prosecutions will
Similarly, the doctrine of issue preclusion does not bar plaintiffs’ claims. Issue preclusion “bars ‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment,’ even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim.” Lee, 290 Va. at 246 (quoting Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008)). Here, as explained, there are no factual issues that have already been litigated, as the facts simply have not yet unfolded. Moreover, defendants do not assert that plaintiffs actually litigated their constitutional claims in the state court proceedings. Instead, defendants argue that plaintiffs had the opportunity to do so in their previous state court proceedings, but chose not to raise these issues.
In arguing that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata, the defendants rely upon Colvin v. Deaton, 577 F. Supp. 925 (W.D. Va. 1984). In Colvin, ten individuals brought constitutional challenges to the Interdiction Statute. The court held that res judicata precluded the plaintiffs from bringing their claims because plaintiffs had the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate their constitutional claims in their state court proceedings, but chose not to do so. Id. at 928.
The court questions whether the plaintiffs in the instant matter had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their constitutional claims. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 (1980) (holding that res judicata can apply to § 1983 claims but noting that “[c]ollateral estoppel does not apply where the party against whom an earlier court decision is asserted did not have a full
Similarly, while the instant matter does “arise from the very fact of the state court proceedings themselves,” namely, the order of interdiction, unlike in Colvin, plaintiffs are not seeking to invalidate those state court proceedings. Instead, plaintiffs seek prospective relief
Defendants also argue that plaintiffs have failed to take advantage of a state court remedy: the interdicting court may amend, alter, or withdraw an interdiction order at any time.
c. Standing
Although not barred by res judicata, plaintiffs’ claims must also be ripe for adjudication. Federal courts address “cases” or “controversies,” and abstract injury does not suffice. O‘Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493-94 (1974). Accordingly, “[a] claim is unripe ‘if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.‘”
To have standing in a pre-enforcement challenge, a plaintiff “must show a threat of prosecution that is both real and immediate . . . before a federal court may examine the validity of the criminal statute.” Doe v. Duling, 782 F.2d 1202, 1205-06 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing cases). “Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . .” O‘Shea, 414 U.S. at 496. However, “[p]ast wrongs [are] evidence bearing on ‘whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury . . . .’ [T]he prospect of future injury rest[s] ‘on the likelihood that [plaintiffs] will again be arrested for and charged with violations of the [allegedly unconstitutional] criminal law.‘” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983) (quoting O‘Shea, 414 U.S. at 495-97).
Here, plaintiffs have alleged that they are homeless alcoholics, who are compelled to possess and consume alcohol. Because they are homeless, this possession and consumption is necessarily in the public view, repeatedly subjecting them to the same set of circumstances that led to their convictions under the consumption prong of the Interdiction Statute. Moreover, each of the remaining named plaintiffs has been arrested under the Interdiction Statute between ten and thirty times. The court believes that these facts, as alleged, raise a sufficient case or controversy. From the face of the complaint, there is “‘a sufficient likelihood’ of encountering some future harm” from the enforcement of the Interdiction Statute. Bane v. Va. Dep‘t of Corrections, No. 7:12-CV-159, 2012 WL 6738274, at *4 (W.D. Va. Dec. 28, 2012) (quoting
As to the unnamed plaintiffs, once the named litigants have established standing, “[t]his conclusion does not automatically establish that [the named plaintiffs are] entitled to litigate the interests of the class [they] seek to represent, but it does shift the focus of examination from the elements of justiciability to the ability of the named representative to ‘fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.‘” Sonsa v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 403 (1975) (citing
d. Statute of Limitations
Defendants next assert that the indirect nature of plaintiffs’ challenge does not excuse plaintiffs from complying with the appropriate statute of limitations. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA“) does not provide a statute of limitations. 118 East 65th Owners, Inc. v. Bonner Props., Inc., 677 F.2d 200, 202 (2d Cir. 1982). Instead, it adopts the applicable limitations of the suit “in which the issues involved would have been litigated if the [DJA] had
While state law dictates the applicable limitations period, federal law determines when the cause of action accrues. Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995). A cause of action accrues “when the plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about the harm done to him that reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action.” Id. The Fourth Circuit adheres to the doctrine of continuing violation, in which “claims premised upon allegations concerning a continuing pattern of unlawful conduct that remains in effect when a lawsuit is filed are not barred by the statute of limitations, even if the alleged pattern commenced prior to an otherwise pertinent limitations period.” Scott v. Clarke, 64 F. Supp. 3d 813, 826 (W.D. Va. 2014) (citing sources). For the continuing violation doctrine to apply, an actual violation must have occurred within the limitations period. Pledger v. City of Virginia Beach, 103 F.3d 119, 1996 WL 671730, at *1 (4th Cir. 1996) (citing Woodard v. Lehman, 717 F.2d 909, 915 (4th Cir. 1983)). A “mere allegation
Defendants assert that four of the five original plaintiffs were interdicted more than two years ago, and that at that time, the plaintiffs had sufficient facts about the harm done that a reasonable inquiry would have revealed their cause of action. Thus, because the suit was filed more than two years after their cause of action allegedly arose, defendants contend that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations. Consistent with their previous arguments, plaintiffs point out that their cause of action has not yet accrued, as they are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in relation to future events. In the alternative, plaintiffs assert that the continuing violation applies because plaintiffs Manning and Deckerhoff were last convicted in November of 2015 and plaintiffs Walls and Williams in March and May of 2016. All four have convictions within the statute of limitations.
The court agrees that the statute of limitations has not lapsed because plaintiffs are seeking prospective relief. See Poe v. Lynchburg Training Sch. and Hosp., 518 F. Supp. 789, 794 (W.D. Va. 1981) (“The remedies which plaintiffs are now permitted to seek encompass prospective relief only, premised on an allegedly continuing deprivation . . . . Since the alleged deprivation is of a continuing nature, the action . . . is obviously not time barred.“) (citing Williams v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 530 F.2d 539, 542 (4th Cir. 1975)); cf. Lyons P‘ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789, 799 (4th Cir. 2001) (explaining that the doctrine of laches may be applied to equitable claims but that the doctrine does not apply to prospective injunctive relief as such an injunction is “entered only on the basis of current, ongoing conduct that threatens future harm“). Moreover, to the extent a statute of limitations applies to plaintiffs’
II. Substantive Arguments
a. Eighth Amendment Claims
Plaintiffs allege that enforcement of the consumption prong of the Interdiction Statute constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because it punishes the status of being a homeless alcoholic. In contrast, defendants assert three reasons why the Eighth Amendment claim fails.3 For the reasons set forth below, the court will dismiss plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim.
First, defendants argue that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars the claim. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that if a § 1983 claim would necessarily invalidate an existing and presumptively valid state court judgment of conviction, the § 1983 claim is not cognizable unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that the conviction “has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court‘s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus . . . .” Id. at 486-87. Thus, if in granting relief, judgment in plaintiffs’ favor would suggest the invalidity of the conviction or sentence, the suit must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 487. This doctrine applies regardless of whether damages or injunctive relief is sought. Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 2002).
Defendants’ argument misunderstands the relief requested by the plaintiffs. They do not seek to invalidate their previous state court convictions or interdiction proceedings. Instead, they seek prospective injunctive relief requiring the defendants to comply with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Such claims are not subject to dismissal under the Heck line of cases. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005) (noting that “the prisoner‘s claim for an injunction barring future unconstitutional procedures did not fall within habeas’ exclusive domain” and was not barred by Heck) (emphasis in original); Lawrence v. McCall, 238 F. App‘x 393, 396 (10th Cir. 2007) (affirming the district court‘s determination that Heck does not bar the plaintiffs from seeking prospective relief).
Second, defendants argue that the Interdiction Statute does not violate the Eighth Amendment‘s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment because it criminalizes conduct, not the status of being a homeless alcoholic. Plaintiffs’ argument in response relies upon the Fourth Circuit‘s pronouncement that “the State cannot stamp an unpretending chronic alcoholic as a criminal if his drunken public display is involuntary as the result of disease.” Driver v. Hinnant, 356 F.2d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 1966). Plaintiffs’ reliance upon Driver, however, necessarily hinges on the continued validity of that holding, which plaintiffs contend was not overruled by the United States Supreme Court in Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968) (discussing the scope of the Supreme Court‘s holding in Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)). Plaintiffs also assert that their claim is further supported by two recent Ninth Circuit cases, Ledezma-Cosino v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 1070 (2016) and Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006).
The Ninth Circuit‘s holding in Jones, however, addresses a more difficult issue. In Jones, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that “[a] closer analysis of Robinson and Powell instructs that the
In Robinson v. California, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a law that made it a crime “to be addicted to the use of narcotics.” 370 U.S. at 664. The Supreme Court determined that the statute made the “‘status’ of narcotic addiction a criminal offense, for which the offender may be prosecuted . . . whether or not [the offender] has ever used or possessed any narcotics within the State.” Id. at 666. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the statute at issue punished an illness, narcotic addiction, that may be contracted innocently or involuntary, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
It is suggested in dissent that Robinson stands for the ‘simple’ but ‘subtle’ principle that ‘(c)riminal penalties may not be inflicted upon a person for being in a condition he is powerless to change.’ In that view, appellant‘s ‘condition’ of public intoxication was ‘occasioned by a compulsion symptomatic of the disease’ of chronic alcoholism, and thus, apparently, his behavior lacked the critical element of mens rea. Whatever may be the merits of such a doctrine of criminal responsibility, it surely cannot be said to follow from Robinson . . . . [Robinson] thus does not deal with the question of whether certain conduct cannot constitutionally be punished because it is, in some sense, ‘involuntary’ or ‘occasioned by a compulsion.’
Id. at 533-534 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court declined to extend the Eighth Amendment protection to “involuntary” conduct. Instead, “[t]he court specifically rejected in Powell the notion that since the status of alcoholism could not be criminally punished under Robinson, conduct symptomatic of alcoholism (e.g. public drunkenness) was constitutionally protected as well.” Fisher v. Coleman, 486 F. Supp. 311, 316 (W.D. Va. 1979).
This rejection has been understood by courts within this circuit as abrogating Driver. See Fisher, 486 F. Supp. at 316 (“In so holding, the court overruled and made inapplicable the holdings in the cases of Driver v. Hinnant, 356 F.2d 761 (4th Cir. 1966) and Easter v. District of Columbia, 361 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1966), insofar as those cases held that the Eighth Amendment bars criminal punishment of behavior symptomatic of alcoholism.“); Rakes v. Coleman, 359 F. Supp. 370, 380 (E.D. Va. 1973) (”Driver . . . turned in essence upon the concept of mens rea specifically rejected in Powell. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Powell overrules Driver.“).
Furthermore, and consistent with the statute analyzed in Powell, the Interdiction Statute imposes “a criminal sanction for public behavior which may create substantial health and safety hazards . . . and which offends the moral and esthetic sensibilities of a large segment of the community.” Powell, 392 U.S. at 532. The dissent in Jones recognized that “both the [Supreme] Court and [the Ninth Circuit] have constrained this category of Eighth Amendment violation to persons who are being punished for crimes that do not involve conduct that society has an interest in preventing.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1139 (Rymer, J., dissenting); see also Anderson, 2009 WL 2386056, at *7 (noting, in rejecting plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim, that “a critical factor is whether and to what degree the City‘s enforcement of the [challenged] ordinances criminalizes
[T]he most troubling aspects of this case, were Robinson to be extended [to include involuntary conduct derivative of status], would be the scope and content of what could only be a constitutional doctrine of criminal responsibility .... We cannot cast aside the centuries-long evolution of the collection of interlocking and overlapping concepts which the common law has utilized to assess the moral accountability of an individual . . . . The doctrines of actus reus, mens rea, insanity, mistake, justification, and duress have historically provided the tolls for a constantly shifting adjustment of the tension between the evolving aims of the criminal law and changing religious, moral, philosophical, and medical views of the nature of man. This process of adjustment has always been thought to be the province of the States.
Id. at 533-34. In Virginia, the Jackson court aptly observed that “suggestions for changes in societal views on the cause and effects of alcoholism and their impact on the laws of the state should be addressed in the legislature.” 604 S.E.2d at 125. Accordingly, the court concludes that defendants have failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment under a theory that the Interdiction Statute punishes status and not conduct. The Supreme Court has not answered “the question of whether certain conduct cannot constitutionally be punished because it is, in some sense, ‘involuntary’ or ‘occasioned by a compulsion‘“; courts within this circuit have discounted the validity of Driver and upheld Eighth Amendment challenges to the Interdiction Statute; and determining the outer contours of what can be punished is properly left to the States.5 Powell at 533-34. Moreover, to hold differently would open the door to challenges to punishments which seemingly fit squarely within the bounds of the Eighth Amendment, such as claims by narcotics addicts for being punished for the status of “being” in possession of drugs.
Similarly, a variety of sex offenders could evade punishment by arguing that their conduct was
To the extent plaintiffs argue that Powell, Fisher, and Jackson were decided on inadequate records, the court is not persuaded. While the plurality in Powell stated, “We are unable to conclude, on the state of this record or on the current state of medical knowledge, that chronic alcoholics ... suffer from an irresistible compulsion to drink and to get drunk in public,” the Supreme Court also emphasized that it had not articulated “a constitutional doctrine of criminal responsibility.” Powell, 392 U.S. at 535. The undeveloped record, therefore, was not determinative. Additionally, the plurality declined to extend Robinson to “the question of whether certain conduct cannot constitutionally be punished because it is, in some sense, ‘involuntary’ or ‘occasioned by a compulsion.‘” Id. Further, the decisions in Jackson and Fisher based their holdings on more than just a deficient record. See Fisher, 486 F. Supp. at 316 (holding that the Interdiction Statute makes specific behavior unlawful); Jackson, 604 S.E.2d at 125 (holding that the Interdiction Statute requires an act and thus does not punish status).
Plaintiffs, however, also argue that the Interdiction Statute, as applied to them as homeless individuals, violates the Eighth Amendment because their homelessness provides them with no other place to consume or possess alcohol other than in public. This argument is based on the assertion that the Interdiction Statute punishes status and not conduct, which has the result, plaintiffs allege, of punishing plaintiffs for just “being” a homeless alcoholic. As discussed, the court does not believe the Interdiction Statute punishes status. See Fisher, 486 F. Supp. at 316 (finding that the Interdiction Statute did not violate the Eighth Amendment when the homeless plaintiff had admitted alcoholism). The Interdiction Statute makes it illegal for interdicted individuals to possess or consume alcohol, which is an act, regardless of whether that possession or consumption is in public or in the confines of their own home.
b. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claims
Plaintiffs claim that the Interdiction Statute, as applied, deprives them of the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Due process requires fair notice and an opportunity to be heard. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). Beyond that, its requirements are “flexible and call[] for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972). The Supreme Court has observed that the Due Process Clause creates a presumption that an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when an adverse decision would result in his or her deprivation of physical liberty. Lassiter v. Dep‘t of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (“The pre-eminent generalization that emerges from this Court‘s precedents on an indigent‘s right to appointed counsel is that such a right has been recognized to exist only where the litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation.“). However, the Due Process Clause does not require the appointment of counsel for indigent persons in every such civil proceeding. See Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 443 (2011) (surveying past cases and observing that the right to counsel attaches “‘only’ in cases involving incarceration, not that a right to counsel exists in all such cases“) (emphasis in original). The exact requirements of due process are determined by an examination of the relevant factors set out by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge. See, e.g., Turner, 564 U.S. at 444 (“[W]e consequently determine the ‘specific dictates of due process’ by examining the ‘distinct factors’ that this Court has previously found useful in deciding what specific safeguards the
Here, the court is not convinced that plaintiffs have pled facts demonstrating that the civil interdiction hearings themselves deprive them of their physical liberty. The court finds Ferguson v. Gathright, 485 F.2d 504 (4th Cir. 1973), instructive. In Ferguson, an individual was convicted of driving a motor vehicle after his license had been revoked. Id. at 505. Seeking habeas relief, the individual argued that he was deprived of due process because he did not receive the aid of counsel at the revocation proceeding. Id. at 505-06. In denying relief, the Fourth Circuit highlighted the important difference between the “quasicriminal” revocation proceeding and subsequent criminal proceeding: the revocation hearing did not result in the loss of liberty or threat of incarceration. Id. at 506. Instead, the individual came under the threat of incarceration “only if he subsequently determine[d] to take the law into his own hands and to operate a motor vehicle on the public highway without a valid permit.” Id. (emphasis in original).
In the instant case, plaintiffs are not incarcerated upon an order of interdiction being entered against them. However harsh the label of “habitual drunkard” may be, it is the subsequent act of consuming, possessing, or attempting to consume or possess alcohol that gives
Plaintiffs, however, contend that they are alcoholics and are thus compelled to consume and possess alcohol. Because they are homeless, this possession and consumption occurs in the public view, leading to their deprivation of liberty. Accordingly, plaintiffs contend that the presumption of a right to appointed counsel applies. Even assuming that the interdiction proceeding deprives the plaintiffs of physical liberty, the court finds that the Due Process Clause does not require the appointment of counsel at that proceeding. In making this determination, the court considers the nature of the “private interest that will be affected,” the comparative risk of an erroneous deprivation, and the government interest at stake to determine whether plaintiffs were afforded sufficient due process. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.
Here, as in Turner, the “private interest that will be affected” weighs in favor of the right to counsel if, as plaintiffs argue, being interdicted likely leads to their incarceration. The Due Process Clause is implicated when imprisonment is at issue. See, e.g., Turner, 564 U.S. at 445. However, in contrast to the plaintiffs’ interest, the court cannot ignore the Commonwealth‘s obvious concern in protecting the safety and welfare of its citizens by seeking to make illegal, in certain instances, the consumption or possession of alcohol. See Mitchell v. Comm‘r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 182 F.3d 272, 274 (4th Cir. 1999) (“It cannot seriously be disputed that [the
Regarding this third factor, the court is reminded that each of the named plaintiffs is an alcoholic who is compelled to possess and consume alcohol, often in the public view because of his homelessness. They seek to certify a class of homeless alcoholics.
The court recognizes that in the case of some individuals, the risk of erroneous deprivation may be greater, tilting the balance towards the appointment of counsel. However,
Plaintiffs also allege that the Interdiction Statute violates their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because the Interdiction Statute allows the Commonwealth to prove an element of a crime using a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. To be criminally convicted under the Interdiction Statute, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant was interdicted and engaged in a prohibited act. See
The fundamental flaw in plaintiffs’ argument is that being a “habitual drunkard,” the showing required in an interdiction proceeding, is not an underlying fact that leads to incarceration. Instead, the Commonwealth must prove the fact that the individual has been interdicted, in addition to proving that defendant has possessed, consumed, or attempted to possess or consume alcohol.
c. Fourteenth Amendment Vagueness Claim
In Count Five, plaintiffs challenge the Interdiction Statute under a void-for-vagueness theory. “The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983). In evaluating whether a statute is vague, a court considers both whether it provides notice of the unlawful activity and whether it adequately curtails arbitrary enforcement. See United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69, 71 (4th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs claim that the civil component of the Interdiction Statute is tantamount to a criminal proceeding, because they will inevitably be convicted under the consumption prong of the Interdiction Statute. Consequently, because
It is well-settled that “[o]ne to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 (1974). “[W]here a statute does not regulate First Amendment freedoms, claims of overbreadth and vagueness may not be brought by persons whose actions fall clearly within the terms of the statute in question.” Fisher v. Coleman, 486 F. Supp. 311, 314 (W.D. Va. 1979) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 608-10 (1973)). It seems readily apparent that the statutory term “habitual drunkard” applies to homeless alcoholics compelled to possess and consume alcohol with no choice but to do so in public spaces. See id. (finding the plaintiff, a homeless alcoholic, lacked standing to sue
To the extent that plaintiffs assert that the statute, as applied to them, is unconstitutionally vague because it does not provide sufficient notice of the proscribed conduct, the court does not agree.
The Constitution does not require a precise statutory definition for every essential term used in a statute, but merely requires that the terms used have a meaning which would give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.
Id. at 314. When assessing the constitutional clarity of the terms of a statute, the court evaluates the statute in light of the conduct to which the statute is applied. United States v. Nat‘l Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 31 (1963). State statutes are presumed to be valid and “should be construed whenever possible so as to uphold their constitutionality.” Telvest, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 547 F. Supp. 791, 796 (E.D. Va. 1982) (citing Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 382-83 (1971)). A statute will not fail simply because there is difficulty in determining whether certain marginal offenses fall within their language. Nat‘l Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. at 32.
In the instant case, the Interdiction Statute contains explicit standards which law enforcement may apply to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The court further believes that it puts the plaintiffs on reasonable notice as to the proscribed conduct. Compare
d. Equal Protection Claim
Lastly, defendants contend that plaintiffs have failed to state an equal protection claim. Defendants argue that the Interdiction Statute does not discriminate against a protected class and does not implicate a fundamental right. Defendants also argue that the Interdiction Statute is the proper exercise of the Commonwealth‘s police power in promoting public safety by subjecting recidivist individuals to heightened criminal sentences for possession of alcohol and public intoxication. Plaintiffs allege that they state an equal protection claim because they are treated differently than similarly-situated individuals and because the Interdiction Statute implicates a fundamental right: the right to be free from incarceration.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that no state “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
At the outset, the court notes that plaintiffs are not a suspect class. Alcoholics have not yet achieved that status. Mitchell, 182 F.3d at 274. Neither have homeless individuals. Joel v. City of Orlando, 232 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore, plaintiffs have not stated a claim that the statute impermissibly targets a suspect class.
The court next turns to the question of whether plaintiffs were treated differently than similarly-situated individuals. Plaintiffs frame their argument as if they are similarly situated to non-interdicted individuals and non-alcoholics. The court does not consider interdicted
In the instant case, those individuals who have been interdicted have different legal rights than those who have not been: they have been either convicted of driving under the influence or shown in a judicial proceeding to be a habitual drunkard, prohibiting them from engaging in certain conduct. See, e.g., Berg v. Egan, 979 F. Supp. 330, 337 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (noting that distinctions between people with different rights and responsibilities are less likely than other distinctions to be irrational or arbitrary); United States v. Nicolas-Juan, 426 F. App‘x 154, 2011 WL 1624963, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011) (finding that a convicted criminal alien was not similarly situated with a non-criminal alien). Nor is the court convinced that they are, despite this difference, “similar in all aspects relevant to attaining the legitimate objectives of legislation,” when a possible aim of the legislation is to protect the public from the harms of excessive alcohol consumption. Van Der Linde Housing, Inc., 507 F.3d at 291. Importantly, even if plaintiffs were similarly situated to non-alcoholics, plaintiffs have alleged no discriminatory purpose or intent in treating non-alcoholics and alcoholics differently. See Morrison, 239 F.3d at 654 (“To succeed on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he has been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination.“).
Plaintiffs, however, also argue that the criminal prong of the Interdiction Statute treats similarly-situated interdicted individuals disparately, as homeless interdicted individuals are allegedly prosecuted more so than similarly-situated non-homeless interdicted individuals. This
In equal protection cases, “the focus, for purposes of determining whether a ‘fundamental interest’ is involved, is not upon the punishment or other imposition to which the complaining party has been subjected, but rather upon the activity of the complaining party which has been made the reason for the punishment or imposition.” United States v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 128, 133 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (emphasis in original). As a result, the court does not apply strict scrutiny when the consequence of violating a regulation or substantive law is incarceration. Id. With this understanding, the activity giving rise to the punishment is the possession or consumption of alcohol by homeless alcoholics who have been interdicted. Possession and consumption of alcohol is not a fundamental right. Cf. Giordano v. Connecticut Valley Hosp., 588 F. Supp. 2d 306, 321-22 (D. Conn. 2008) (upholding a smoking ban at a state-operated psychiatric facility and finding that plaintiffs did not have a fundamental right to smoke). If the consumption prong of the Interdiction Statute violated the fundamental right of being free from incarceration, it would follow that every penal statute or civil contempt proceeding that led to incarceration would need to survive strict scrutiny. Accordingly, the court does not believe that the Interdiction Statute implicates a fundamental right and will review the statutory scheme under a rational basis standard.
The plaintiffs assert that the Interdiction Statute does not survive this highly deferential standard of review. They contend that there is no rational basis for criminalizing the possession and consumption of alcohol by homeless alcoholics. In support of this argument, plaintiffs again
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted. The Clerk is directed to strike this case from the court‘s active docket and to send copies of this memorandum opinion and the accompanying order to all counsel of record.
DATED: This 8th day of February, 2017.
Chief United States District Judge