Opinion
No. 5:00-CT-236-BO
December 18, 2001
ORDER
On April 10, 2000, the Plaintiff, a federal inmate, filed this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On April 27, 2000, this Court dismissed the matter as frivolous. Thereafter, on December 20, 2000, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the case. The matter was then allowed to proceed in this Court and the Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. The Plaintiff has responded to the motion and the matter is ripe for determination.
The Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied work placement on the basis of discrimination while in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Prison Camp in Butner, North Carolina (FPI). The Plaintiff makes this allegation of discrimination against Defendant Kent Martin, the General Business Manager with Federal Prison Industries, Inc. He claims that he has been on the waiting list for inmates with prior work experience in order to procure a job. He alleges that several inmates have been hired although these individuals did not precede him on the waiting list. Although there are regulations which allow for inmates to be hired out of the prescribed order, the Plaintiff contends that the sole reason for such circumvention was based on race and is discriminatory.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there exists no genuine issue of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. Id. at 250. Furthermore, a party cannot ward off summary judgment with an affidavit based on rumor or conjecture. Palucki v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 879 F.2d 1568, 1572 (7th Cir. 1989).
Inmates have a constitutional right to be free from racial discrimination. Bently v. Beck, 625 F.2d 70-71 (5th Cir. 1980). In order to establish a constitutional equal protection claim for racial discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that a government actor has treated him differently from persons of a different race and that the government actor did so purposefully. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-42 (1976); Indianapolis Minority Contractor's Ass'n, Inc. v. Wiley, 187 F.3d 743, 752 (7th Cir. 1999). Once this showing is made, the court proceeds to determine whether the disparity in treatment can be justified under the requisite level of scrutiny. See e.g., City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 439-40, 105 S.Ct. 3249; In re Long Term Admin. Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 471 (4th Cir.), cert. denied Mickle v. Moore, 528 U.S. 874, 120 S.Ct. 179, 145 L.Ed.2d 151 (1999); Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert County, 48 F.3d 810, 818-19 (4th Cir. 1995).
Liability may not be imposed on an individual in a Bivens action without a showing of that individual's personal responsibility for the constitutional violation. Dewalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000); Bentley v. Beck, 625 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1980). Only federal officials who actually participated in the alleged unconstitutional behavior are appropriate parties in a Bivens suit. Id. Hence, a federal official cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of his/her subordinates under the doctrine of "respondeat superior." See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); Ward v. Johnson, 667 F.2d 1126 (4th Cir. 1981).
The policies which govern the FPI work programs are found in the Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 8120.01, Work Programs for Inmate, FPI. See also, Code of Federal Regulations, at 28 C.F.R. § 345.10-345.84. Inmates are apprised of their ability to work at FPI during the BOP Admission and Orientation process. The inmate workers are normally hired through a dual waiting list process (with prior work experience and with no prior work experience) in order of the tendered application. The policy allows for inmates to be hired ahead of the wait listed inmates based on skill. Documentation is required in such an instance which is to include the reasons for such a decision.
The Plaintiff requested to work on or about October 9, 1997. At that time he was placed on the with prior experience waiting list and was approximately number 54. The Plaintiff has remained on the waiting list and was currently ranked number 8 at the time of the filing of the dispositive motion. From the record it appears that since 1997, eleven inmates have been hired to work at the Camp Warehouse. Seven of the inmates were on the waiting list ahead of the Plaintiff. Four of the inmates were hired as exceptions, and the documentation reflects each inmate's qualifications in compliance with the regulation. Each of the four inmates was hired by someone other than the Defendant and such hiring was approved by someone other than the Defendant. The affidavits of both James Parrot, an employee of the prison, and Kent Martin explicitly state that Martin's position at the prison is not one in which he plays a role in the hiring process. Martin does state that on one occasion in 1997 he was on an interview panel because the prison was short staffed, but was not further involved with the inmate selection process. Plaintiff Ridings responds by stating that this is an untruth and therefore the contradiction requires a trial.
James Parrot is the Warehouse Supervisor (Offical Title, Transportation Officer) with Federal Prison Industries, Inc. He is the individual who selected the four inmates from outside the waiting list. These inmates were thereafter approved by the Supervisor of Industries (SOI). Documentation for the hiring was made.
Plaintiff Ridings has misinterpreted the law. Although, the Plaintiff is entitled to all inferences being drawn in his favor as the non-moving party, this standard requires that the inferences be legitimate, justifiable inferences from the evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The Defendant cannot rest on conclusory allegations, speculation, and conjecture to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See, Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 364 (4th Cir. 1985)("Genuineness [of an issue for trial] means that the evidence must create fair doubt; wholly speculative assertions will not suffice.") Thus, he cannot rest on his assertion of malfeasance on the part of the Defendant in light of the uncontroverted evidence to the contrary as provided to the Court through the sworn declarations of Defendant Martin and James Parrot.
The Court finds that Martin had no role in the hiring process, that Bivens precludes liability for an individual under a claim of respondeat superior, and that Martin is not the proper party to sue if in fact discriminatory hiring occurred. Therefore, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the matter is DISMISSED. Having so determined, all outstanding motions are MOOT. The Court further finds that additional discovery for the Plaintiff would not change the outcome of this matter. The Plaintiff seeks information regarding the inmates hired, but this case's dismissal is not based upon the actual hiring of inmates and whether such hirings were discriminatory, but the fact that Defendant Martin is not the proper party in such a suit under Bivens.