Hamlet v. Irvin

1

BRIAN LEON HAMLET, Plaintiff, v. DOUG A. IRVIN, et al., Defendants.

No. 7:20-cv-00013

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

May 3, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MICHAEL F. URBANSKI CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Brian Leon Hamlet, a former Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Doug Irvin, Vanessa Duncan, and Travis Cassell. Hamlet claims that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights by requiring him to wear a Global Positioning System (GPS) device as a condition of his state probation. He seeks to recover damages from the defendants in their individual capacities.

On September 13, 2021, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment as moot. In doing so, the court determined that Hamlet's claims were barred by Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the defendants forfeited the Heck issue by failing to dispute Hamlet's assertion that the decision did not bar his claims and that this court erred in summarily dismissing the complaint on the basis of Heck. Hamlet v. Irvin, No. 21-7477, 2023 WL 3478408, at *1 (4th Cir. May 16, 2023). The Fourth Circuit further concluded that this court “should consider [the defendants' motion for summary judgment] and Hamlet's response before deciding whether Hamlet states a claim on which relief may be granted under § 1983.” Id. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id.

In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that the defense bars each of Hamlet's claims under § 1983. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 23, is GRANTED.

I. Background

The following facts are primarily taken from Hamlet's verified complaint, defendant Duncan's affidavit, and their accompanying exhibits. The facts are either undisputed or presented in the light most favorable to Hamlet, the nonmoving party on summary judgment.

On February 18, 2014, Hamlet was found guilty of malicious wounding in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Virginia. Sentencing Order, Compl. Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1 at 1. He appeared for sentencing on May 20, 2014. Id. The circuit court sentenced Hamlet to a term of imprisonment of 15 years, within 10 years suspended. Id. at 2. The conditions of Hamlet's suspended sentence including the following:

Good Behavior: The defendant shall be of good behavior for 10 years . . . from the defendant's release from confinement[.]

Supervised Probation: The defendant is placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer to commence . . . upon release from incarceration for 5 years ....The defendant shall comply with all the rules and requirements set by the Probation Officer. Probation shall include substance abuse counseling and/or testing as prescribed by the Probation Officer.

Id. at 3. The circuit court further ordered that Hamlet was “not to have any contact with the victim.” Id. at 4. The sentencing order did not include any additional requirements in the section for “[s]pecial conditions.” Id. at 3.

On January 5, 2018, Hamlet was released from the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) to the supervision of the District 28 Probation and Parole Office in Radford, Virginia. Duncan Aff., ECF No. 24-1, ¶ 6. Hamlet met with Duncan, his assigned probation officer, who reviewed his conditions of supervised probation with him and informed him that she was placing him on GPS monitoring. Compl. 9. Hamlet objected on the basis that the circuit court had not ordered GPS monitoring and asked Duncan who had authorized it. Id. Duncan informed Hamlet that she and other members of the probation staff, including Irvin and Cassell, had determined that he needed to be placed on GPS monitoring. Id. at 10.

Duncan's affidavit explains that offenders “may be assigned to GPS monitoring by the supervising Probation and Parole (P&P) District's screening committee-which is made up of a group of P&P staff members that review cases to determine an offender's eligibility and priority for placement on GPS or voice recognition monitoring.” Duncan Aff. ¶ 7 (citing VDOC Operating Procedure (OP) 435.5, Electronic Monitoring Program). OP 435.5 permits “P&P Offices [to] make discretionary use of Electronic Monitoring as a supervision tool for high-risk cases ....” VDOC OP 435.5 § IV(A)(3) (Sept. 1, 2018), available at https://web.archive.org/web/20190819171722/https://vadoc.virginia.gov/files/operating-procedures/400/vadoc-op-435-5.pdf (last visited May 1, 2024).^[1] The policy then lists several categories of offenders for which electronic monitoring may be used as a supervision tool, including “[o]ffenders whose behavior or history justifies referral by the supervising Officer.” Id. According to the defendants' evidence, which has not been disputed by Hamlet, the decision to place Hamlet on GPS monitoring was “deemed necessary due to his history of violence and threatening behaviors,” including evidence that Hamlet had threatened to kill a judge, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and Virginia Tech students following a court appearance in 2014. Duncan Aff. ¶ 7.^[2] The defendants also found GPS monitoring to be appropriate in light of Hamlet's particular supervision needs, including the need to ensure that he complied with the circuit court's requirement that he not have contact with the victim of the malicious wounding. Id.

Duncan presented Hamlet with several forms to sign, including a Conditions of Probation Supervision form, GPS Monitoring Rules, and an Electronic Monitoring Equipment Assignment and Receipt form. Duncan Aff. Encls. A, B, ECF No. 24-1 at 6-8. Hamlet objected to signing the forms and informed Duncan that he wanted an “attorney and a hearing” on the GPS monitoring requirement. Compl. 10. After hearing the conversation between Hamlet and Duncan, Cassell appeared with a GPS ankle bracelet and directed Hamlet to sign the forms. Id. When Hamlet balked at doing so, Duncan and Cassell informed him that they would have him “lock[ed] back up” if he did not comply with their instructions. Id. at 10-11.

Hamlet ultimately signed all of the forms presented by Duncan. By signing the Conditions of Probation Supervision form, Hamlet agreed to follow 11 additional conditions, including a condition requiring that he “maintain regular employment”; a condition requiring that he “follow the Probation and Parole Officer's instructions” and “be truthful, cooperative, and report as instructed”; and a condition requiring that he “not use alcoholic beverages.” Duncan Aff. Encl. A. By signing the GPS Monitoring Rules, Hamlet agreed to keep the GPS ankle bracelet within 50 feet of him at all times and to not enter the “exclusion zone,” which was defined as the “victim [and] mother's home.” Duncan Aff. Encl. B.

After Hamlet signed the forms, Duncan and Cassell secured the bracelet around Hamlet's left ankle. Compl. 5, 11. Cassell also programmed the device to activate if Hamlet violated his 10:00 p.m. curfew. Id. at 10; see also Duncan Aff. ¶ 8 (explaining that Probation and Parole District 28 paid for temporary housing at the Travel Inn Motel in Pulaski County since Hamlet did not have a home plan or residence upon his release from incarceration and that Hamlet was subject to a curfew as a condition of receiving temporary housing).

Hamlet wore the GPS ankle bracelet until late August 2018. See Compl. 6. On August 23, 2018, the manager of the Travel Inn Motel informed Duncan that Hamlet would no longer be allowed to stay at the motel after punching holes in the wall and causing other damage to his room. Duncan Aff. ¶ 10; see also id. ¶ 9 (describing a similar incident that occurred on March 29, 2018, after which Hamlet admitted to punching the wall). Motel employees also reported that Hamlet had been drinking alcohol, which was a violation of his conditions. Id. ¶ 10. Additionally, Hamlet had not maintained regular employment. Id. That same day, a probation violation warrant was issued for Hamlet's arrest, and “[u]pon being taken into custody at the [New River Valley Regional Jail], the GPS device was removed.” Id.

On January 8, 2019, Hamlet was found to have violated his conditions of supervised probation. Id. ¶ 12. The circuit court “revoked Hamlet's previously suspended sentence, but re-suspended the remaining time after giving him credit for time served, as well as 5 years supervised probation.” Id.

On January 31, 2019, after being returned to supervision, Hamlet was placed on “Shadow Track (voice recognition) monitoring.” Id. ¶ 13. Less than three months later, on April 11, 2019, Hamlet was arrested again for violating his conditions of probation after being found guilty of more than one charge of public swearing/intoxication. Id. ¶ 14; see also Duncan Aff. Encl. F, ECF No. 24-1 at 15-16. On August 19, 2019, the circuit court revoked Hamlet's suspended sentence and required him to serve an active term of incarceration of one year and six months. Duncan Aff. ¶ 15.

II. Procedural History

On January 7, 2020, while serving the sentence imposed by the circuit court, Hamlet filed this action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 against Duncan, Cassell, and Irvin. Hamlet claims that the defendants conspired to violate, and did violate, his federal constitutional rights by requiring him to wear a GPS device “without a court order”...