Vega v. United States

JUAN D. VEGA, JR., Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Case No. C11-632-RSM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Dated: December 1, 2011

ORDER ON MOTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Juan D. Vega, Jr., proceeding pro se, brings this action against the United States of America; Pioneer Human Services ("Pioneer") - a private corporation that owns and manages a residential re-entry center in Seattle Washington called the Pioneer Fellowship House; and several individuals employed by each of these defendants. Plaintiff asserts fifteen causes ofaction arising out of his removal from the Pioneer Fellowship House and placement back in federal detention. Before the Court are motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) filed by the government and its employees (the "government defendants") (Dkt. No. 29) and Pioneer and its employees (the "Pioneer defendants") (Dkt. No. 9). For the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

II. BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff arrived at the Pioneer Fellowship House Residential Reentry Center (hereinafter "PFH") in August 2008. Upon arrival, Plaintiff met with Pioneer employee Counselor Bernadette Mathis. Plaintiff informed Ms. Mathis that while he was incarcerated at the federal detention center in Sheridan, Oregon, he had been medically unassigned and not required to work at any type of job. He also informed Ms. Mathis that he had filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for a waiver from work and subsistence payments during his time at PFH. (The motion was subsequently denied.) Finally, he told Ms. Mathis that there were five active court proceedings in various jurisdictions in which he was representing himself in a pro se capacity. Ms. Mathis told Plaintiff that, pursuant to Pioneer policy, Plaintiff would not be permitted to go to any library during his stay at PFH and any "Authorized Absence" requests to visit law libraries would be denied. Following thisconversation, Plaintiff filed letters and motions for continuances in his various court cases, explaining that he was being denied access to legal materials.

According to Plaintiff, on September 3, 2009, Ms. Mathis prepared a document entitled "Individual Program Plan/Goals" related to Plaintiff's stay at PFH. In this document, Ms. Mathis noted that Plaintiff was working on obtaining a medical waiver through the Veterans Administration, that he had been informed that he needed to see a doctor to justify his claim, and that he told her he had been exempt from work during his time at Sheridan Federal Detention Center. On September 17, 2008, Ms. Mathis prepared a Resident Case Note in which she documented that Plaintiff had secured employment with Pioneer Food Services and that he was to commence employment on September 20, 2008. Ms. Mathis asked Plaintiff to sign the case note document and Plaintiff refused.

On September 23, 2008, Plaintiff received the results from a physical examination. Plaintiff presented the results to Ms. Mathis. At this time, Plaintiff also told Ms. Mathis that he wanted to continue working because he liked and enjoyed his job.

On September 25, 2008, Ms. Mathis met with Plaintiff and two other PFH staff program managers. Ms. Mathis told Plaintiff that the other program monitors were witnesses and if Plaintiff did not sign the case note document that he had previously refused to sign, she would "write him up for failure to program." Dkt. No. 24, ¶ 35. Plaintiff signed the document at that time, but wrote the words "under duress," following his signature. After signing the document, Plaintiff prepared two PFH "Requests to Staff," also known as "KITES". The first KITE was sent to Ms. Mathis and requested a copy of the rule or procedure that required Plaintiff to sign case note documents. The second KITE was sent to the Director of PFH, Heather McIntyre,requesting a copy of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") Form BP-9. Plaintiff explains that a Form BP-9 is the form used by federal inmates to file administrative complaints.

The following day, Plaintiff was summoned from work for a conference call with Ms. Mathis, Federal BOP Community Corrections Office manager William Brown, Jr., and PFH director Heather McIntyre. Plaintiff was told that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Plaintiff's "refusal to program" at PFH by signing the case note document with the words "under duress." Mr. Brown told Plaintiff during this meeting that he needed to follow the rules and "program."

Between September 25, 2008, and October 16, 2008, Plaintiff lived at PFH without incident. During this time, Plaintiff received a "Level Advancement" for complying with work requirements, paying subsistence, participating in drug abuse treatment, and being free of any incident write ups. However, on October 16, 2008, a meeting purportedly took place between Heather McIntyre (Director of PFH), Bernadette Mathis (counselor at PFH), William Brown Jr., (BOP employee and manager of Community Corrections), Kevin Straight (BOP employee) and Arinda Phillips (BOP employee).² According to Plaintiff, "the aforementioned Defendants, were determined[d] to make an example out of Plaintiff, who is a black male, for his continuous legal actions against the [Federal BOP's Community Corrections Office] ... and [PFH] ...by anymeans... At that meeting, the Defendants designed a plan for Plaintiff's removal by writing up a false Incident Report." Dkt. No. 24, ¶¶ 41-42. The report stated:

Resident Juan Vega arrived at PFH/RRC on 08/20/08. Upon his arrival, resident Vega told his counselor, B. Mathis that he was unwilling to obtain employment due to his medical issues. However, Resident Vega was unable to supply sufficient documentation from any medical professional stating that he was disabled and unable to work. Community Corrections Staff instructed counselor, B. Mathis that Resident Vega needed to obtain employment, follow house rules, pay subsistence, and be appropriately programming. On 09/17/08, his counselor B. Mathis attempted to meet with resident Vega to review and sign his case note. Resident Vega stated he would not sign the case note until a visitor was approved. A second attempt was made and Resident Vega signed his case note but placed "under duress" next to his signature. Resident Vega spoke to CCM, William Brown on 09/25/08 via telephone regarding his refusal to program at PFH/RRC. Mr. Brown told Resident Vega that he needed to follow the rules, and work with his counselor to complete necessary programming. Mr. Brown stated that there would be should be [sic] no more problems with resident Vega while at the RRC. On 10/16/08 at 1000, Staff became aware that Resident Vega has been pursuing an active case with the Department of Labor and Industries and is scheduled to go to trial this Friday, October 17, 2008.

Dkt. # 31, Ex. A.

Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Mathis knew well in advance of October 16, 2008 that Plaintiff had an upcoming trial date. He also alleges that "Defendants knowingly, intentionally and with actual malice, [chose] Plaintiff, who is a black male from over 200,000 plus inmates in the Federal BOP system, as the only inmate that is required to seek their permission before accessing a court by written correspondence." Id. at ¶44. In addition, Plaintiff claims that many of the statements made in the incident report, including the contention that he refused to sign the case note until a visitor was approved, were false.

On October 17, 2008, two U.S. Marshalls transferred Plaintiff in handcuffs from PFH to the Federal Detention Center - SeaTac in SeaTac, Washington, pending a hearing on the violation. On October 23, 2008, Donald Jackson, the PFH Home Confinement Coordinator/Center Discipline Committee Chairperson for the Federal BOP, issued "Findings of the Committee" regarding Plaintiff's violation. Mr. Jackson concluded that "the act was committed as charged." In the section of the hearing report entitled "Specific evidence relied on to support findings," Mr. Jackson wrote,

I find that you committed the prohibited act of Violating [sic] a condition of community program (Code 309). My findings is [sic] based on the written account of the reporting staff member, which indicates on October 16, 2008 at 1030 hrs. Pioneer Fellowship House staff became aware that you were pursuing an active case with the Department of Labor and Industries without permission from Pioneer Fellowship House Staff. I also considered your statement that you did not know what you did. Ignorant [sic] of rules and regulations dose [sic] not constitute a legitimate excuse for violating rules and regulations.

Dkt. No. 24, ¶59. Mr. Jackson purportedly recommended that Plaintiff be terminated "to impress upon you and other residents that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated and that they will be held accountable when they violate Federal BOP and PFH/RRC rules and regulations." Id.

Although the above committee report was generated, a hearing regarding Plaintiff's violation was never held. According to Plaintiff's compliant, Mr. Jackson noticed that the "Investigation Report" issued by PFH counselors was incomplete. Specifically, the sections entitled "Other Facts About the Incident," "Statements of Those Persons Present at Scene," and "Disposition of Evidence" had been left blank. Therefore, Mr. Jackson decided to terminate thehearing until he was able to secure more evidence about the alleged violation. Ultimately, Plaintiff was reinstated at PFH on January 15, 2009.

Mr. Vega brings fifteen claims against the Defendants for their actions in the above-recited events. Defendants seek to dismiss the action in its entirety pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Service by U.S. Marshals

As a...