Source: https://casetext.com/case/ballard-v-carlson
Timestamp: 2019-05-27 01:25:30
Document Index: 551535958

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 550']

Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 | Casetext
Ballard v. Carlson
882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989)
ReadReadAttorney AnalysesAnalyses0lockCiting BriefsBriefs9lockCiting CasesCiting Cases1k
Ballardv.Carlson
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitAug 10, 1989
Glenda G. Gordon, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Breckinridge L. Willcox, U.S. Atty., on brief), James J. Nolan, Jr., Robert L. Pierson, Pierson Pierson, Baltimore, Md., for defendants-appellees.
Appellant Robert Ballard, formerly a federal prisoner, challenges the dismissal of his suit alleging due process violations by Bureau of Prisons officials and the staff of a Community Treatment Center where he served part of his sentence. We conclude that the district court properly dismissed the suit as to Community Program Manager Gene Finley, and that the court's later dismissal of appellant's suit for failure to follow a court order was within its discretion.
Appellant, proceeding pro se, initiated this litigation in the form of a petition for habeas corpus, filed in the District of Maryland on September 11, 1984. Appellant alleged that the disciplinary action violated his due process rights in that VOA staff members intentionally submitted false positive test results as part of an extortion plan directed at prisoners. He also asserted that the tests were negligently performed, contrary to the manufacturer's instructions, and that they were inaccurate. At the same time appellant filed the habeas petition, he brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the director of the Bureau of Prisons, the VOA, Community Program Manager Gene Finley, seven VOA employees, and the laboratory that had performed the drug tests. The district court later determined that the § 1983 suit actually sought relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361. This suit contained essentially the same allegations as the habeas petition, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
The district court consolidated appellant's habeas petition and § 1331 suit in October 1984. Defendants Finley and Carlson filed a motion to dismiss both the petition and the suit, and appellant responded. In December, the district court discovered in a review of the file that only Carlson and Finley had been served with process. The court ordered that the other nine defendants be served, but this was not accomplished as to three VOA employees and the laboratory. In March 1985, the district court dismissed appellant's habeas petition as moot due to his release.
Defendants Carlson and Finley again moved to dismiss the § 1331 suit. The district court granted this motion, holding that appellant had not alleged any specific involvement of the defendants in the testing or the alleged extortion scheme. The court noted that Finley's involvement was confined to approval of the disciplinary actions taken on the basis of the testing, and it declined to impose liability for "relying on the EMIT test per se," holding that this reliance did not constitute a denial of due process. Jt. App. 174. The court noted that appellant "failed the test three straight times," and stated that Carlson and Finley "cannot be faulted for sending appellant back to jail following those results." Jt.App. 175.
Appellant did not file the statement within thirty days, nor did he file any request for extension of time. On January 15, 1986, the defendants moved for dismissal in accordance with the magistrate's order. On January 22, 1986, appellant filed a request, dated January 17, 1986, for a 30-day enlargement of time. Appellant stated that he had been placed in the hospital for chest pains, and that his house had been burglarized. The Magistrate on January 22 filed a report and a recommendation that the case be dismissed pursuant to his earlier order. The Magistrate based this recommendation on appellant's failure to file his motion for enlargement of time within the time set forth in the December 11 order, and on appellant's failure to specify the date and nature of his medical problems, the date of the burglary, and how these events would have interfered with his ability to file a timely response. Jt. App. 197-198. Appellant filed objections to the magistrate's report, stating that he was placed under a doctor's care on December 4, was hospitalized on December 9, and had been unable to work until December 31. He also stated that his house was burglarized on January 15.
Appellant contends that dismissal of this suit conflicts with this Court's cases setting forth four criteria for the propriety of dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). These cases call for review of (i) the degree of personal responsibility of the plaintiff; (ii) the amount of prejudice caused the defendant; (iii) the existence of a history of deliberately proceeding in a dilatory fashion, and (iv) the existence of a sanction less drastic than dismissal. See Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). We also are mindful of the fact that dismissal is not a sanction to be invoked lightly. Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978).
Nonetheless, the four factors discussed in Chandler are not a rigid four-prong test. Rather, the propriety of a dismissal of the type involved here depends on the particular circumstances of the case. Here, we think the Magistrate's explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from failure to obey his order is a critical fact that distinguishes this case from those cited by appellant. See Tolliver v. Northrop Corp., 786 F.2d 316, 319 (7th Cir. 1986) (noting importance of warning prior to dismissal); Davis, 588 F.2d at 71 (same). The warning itself was reasonable as the case had been pending for a year with no clarification of the charges against several defendants. In view of the warning, the district court had little alternative to dismissal. Any other course would have placed the credibility of the court in doubt and invited abuse. We therefore do not find the district court's action to have been an abuse of discretion.
Appellant's second challenge concerns the district court's earlier dismissal of defendant Gene Finley. Appellant asserts that the district court's dismissal of Finley was improper because his approval of disciplinary actions against appellant on the basis of unconfirmed EMIT drug tests violated a regulation governing CTC's. This regulation states that "Center staff shall have each positive urine test validated to substantiate the positive result." 18 C.F.R. § 550.42(c). Appellant argues that failure to comply with this regulation constituted a due process violation on Finley's part.
The district court's dismissal of Finley was also proper for another reason: He was entitled to qualified immunity for his official actions under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), unless such actions were in violation of clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. The record reveals that Finley was entitled to immunity as a matter of law. In view of cases holding that reliance on the EMIT testing procedure does not constitute a denial of due process, see, e.g., Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753 (8th Cir. 1986), including the cases cited by the district court, appellant's claim against Finley cannot be said to have rested on clearly established law. With respect to the federal regulation on which appellant relies here, we hold for the reasons discussed above that Finley cannot reasonably have been expected to know that this regulation placed him under any constitutional duty.