Garrett v. Dotson

1

JACOBY L. GARRETT, Plaintiff, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, ET AL., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-835

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

August 2, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROBERT E. PAYNE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P 12(C) [sic] (ECF No. 135) (the "RULE 12(c) MOTION") and PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 146).

The Court has reviewed the RULE 12(c) MOTION, the j supporting (ECF No. 136), response (ECF No. 139), and reply (ECF No 140) memoranda, and heard oral argument on that motion on March 6, 2024.

Subsequent to that hearing, the Court ordered, received, and has reviewed PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THE ISSUE OF WHETHER HIS CLAIMS REMAIN JUSTICIABLE (ECF No. 145), and the response (ECF No. 150) and reply (ECF No 153) memoranda.

Finally the Court has reviewed PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 146), and the response (ECF No. 149) and reply (ECF No. 152) memoranda.

For the reasons set forth below, this case will be dismissed by the Court, sua sponte, as moot. Accordingly, the RULE 12(c) MOTION (ECF No. 135) will be denied as moot.

Additionally PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 146) will be denied because amendment would be futile.

BACKGROUND

The procedural history of this case is long and involves intertwining state and federal litigation. For the purposes of deciding the matters now pending, the relevant history is as follows.

Jacoby L. Garrett brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, alleging that the defendants violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, he sought relief from Harold W. Clarke,^[1] the Director of Corrections for the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") Richard Davis, the Chief Information Officer for VDOC, Felicia Stretcher, the Information Technology Administration and Operations Manager for VDOC, and VDOC itself. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.") at ¶¶ 11-14 (ECF No. 27).

In Count I of the Amended Complaint, Garrett presented a § 1983 Fourth Amendment violation claim, against Clarke, Davis, and Stretcher in their individual capacities, on the basis of VDOC's drug testing policy, Operating Procedure 135.4 ("OP 135.4" or the "Policy"), as applied to Garrett. He sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 114-121. In Count II, Garrett alleged the same claim against just Clarke and Stretcher, in their official capacities, seeking prospective injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Id. at ¶ 122128. In Count III, Garrett sought a Declaratory Judgment, against VDOC only, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seg., as to the unconstitutionality of the Policy as applied to Garrett. Id. at ¶¶ 129-133. The Policy required Garrett, along with all other VDOC employees, to submit to random drug testing. See OP 135.4, ECF No. 27-3.

The individual defendants moved to dismiss Count I in full, asserting, in part, the defense of qualified immunity. ECF No. 28. The Court held that the defendants did not enjoy qualified immunity and denied that motion. Garrett v. Clarke, 552 F.Supp.3d 539, 556-62 (E.D. Va. 2021). But on interlocutory appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, found that the individual defendants did have qualified immunity (holding, in part, that this Court had defined Garrett's right at too high a level of generality), and dismissed Count I of the Amended Complaint. Garrett v. Clarke, 74 F.4th 579, 588 (4th Cir. 2023). Garrett petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc, but the court denied that petition. ECF No. 133.

Also, all Defendants filed a MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 30) as to Count III, which was granted because there was no independent jurisdictional basis for a declaratory judgment, as to VDOC. Garrett, 552 F.Supp.3d at 555-56. Therefore, Count II, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourth Amendment violation as applied to Garrett, against Dotson and Stretcher in their official capacities,^[2] is the only remaining claim in this case.^[3] From 2016 to 2018, Garrett was a Telecommunications Network Coordinator for VDOC. Am. Compl. at ¶ 7. Garrett allegedly failed to submit to a drug test on June 28, 2018, in violation of OP 135.4. Id. at ¶ 90. On July 17, 2018, VDOC fired Garrett for failing to submit to the June 28 drug test. Id. at ¶ 90.

The parties dispute whether the failure to submit to the drug test actually occurred. According to Garrett, he showed up for the test when he was notified. But, while waiting to actually take the test, he received a call from his manager directing him to attend to a problem. Id. at ¶¶ 75-76. Garrett says that he told the test administrator that his manager needed him to come back, to which the administrator replied, "'I'll get you next time,' or words to that effect." Id. at ¶ 77. Garrett was not tested the rest of that day and then left for a preapproved, week-long vacation the day after. Id. ¶¶ 81, 83. Id. In contrast, Defendants argue that Garrett had left the test site and not taken the test, which was his responsibility once he was informed that a test was required, and which failure was grounds for his dismissal pursuant to OP 135.4. ECF No. 29 at 24. While he was on vacation, VDOC initiated dismissal procedures against him for missing the test and ultimately fired him.

Years of litigation in Virginia courts and administrative proceedings have preceded and co-occurred with this case. Before bringing this § 1983 suit, in 2018, Garrett appealed his firing through the state employee grievance procedures provided by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3000 et seg. First, he filed a dismissal grievance in accordance with Va. Code § 2.2-3003 and had a hearing on October 10, 2018. Am. Compl. at ¶ 91. At his grievance hearing, Garrett factually disputed that he did not submit to the drug test. Decision of Hearing Officer of October 30, 2018 (ECF No. 27-5) at 6-7 [hereinafter "First Grievance Decision"] . The only Constitutional challenge Garrett raised was a denial of due process. Id. The Hearing Officer rejected Garrett's arguments and affirmed Garrett's firing on October 30, 2018. Id. at 7.

Next, Garrett appealed that decision to the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, sitting as an appellate court for grievance hearings pursuant to Va. Code § 2.2-3006. Am. Compl. at ¶ 98. There, Garrett, for the first time, raised a new Constitutional argument: a Fourth Amendment violation. Garrett v. Dep't of Corr., 102 Va. Cir. 53, at *2 (City of Richmond 2019) . He asserted that his random drug test was an unreasonable search because he did not hold a "safety-sensitive" position. Id. The Circuit Court held that: (1) it could hear Garrett's newly raised Fourth Amendment argument; (2) it could remand the matter to the Hearing Officer to develop the factual record on that argument; and (3) it could then render a new decision based on that record. Id.

On remand, the Hearing Officer ordered that Garrett be reinstated. Remand Decision of Hearing Officer at 10-12 (ECF No. 46-1) [hereinafter "Remand Decision"]. After hearing new evidence, the Hearing Officer found that Garrett's position was not safety-sensitive. Therefore, the Hearing Officer held that VDOC's attempt to randomly drug test Garrett ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 13. The Office of Employment Dispute Resolution ("EDR") affirmed the decision to reinstate Garrett on the basis of that reasoning, as did the Circuit Court. ECF No. 49-1; Dep't of Corr, v. Garrett, 108 Va. Cir. 57 (City of Richmond 2021).

But the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed. Dep't of Corr, v. Garrett, Nos. 0456-21-2, 0796-21-2, 2022 WL 677897 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2022) [hereinafter "Court of Appeals Decision"]. It held, following the state's "tripartite review procedure," that the Circuit Court was limited to determining "whether the grievance determination [was] 'contradictory to law, '" and that the Circuit Court had exceeded its role when it remanded the case for further proceedings before the Hearing Officer. Id. at *2 (citing Passaro v. Va. Dep't of State Police, 67 Va.App. 357, 367 (2017) [hereinafter "Passaro State Court Decision") . The Court of Appeals held that, on his initial appeal, Garrett bore the burden of providing a record from which the Circuit Court sufficiently could determine whether the Hearing Officer had erred. Id. at *3 (collecting cases). Because Garrett had not raised his Fourth Amendment argument in the grievance hearing, he had failed to carry that burden. Id. at *4. Therefore, said the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court had erred in remanding the case to develop the factual record beyond what Garrett presented in the original grievance hearing. Id. So, the court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for a new ruling, the basis of which was to be confined to the record as initially presented. Id.

On remand, the Circuit Court dismissed the appeal on May 8, 2023. Garrett v. Va. Dep't of Corr., ECF No. 115-1, at 4 [hereinafter "Final Circuit Court Opinion"]. The Final Circuit Court Opinion found that the grievance hearing record was bare of any support for Garrett's Fourth Amendment argument. Id. Thus, Garrett did not carry his burden and his argument failed. Garrett has since stated that he will not pursue any further appeal in state court. ECF No. 124 at 2.

As of March 1, 2022, VDOC has adopted a new drug testing policy also named Operating Procedure 135.4, Alcohol and Other Drug Testing ("New OP 135.4"). ECF...