Harris v. Unknown, No. 3:2023cv00599 - Document 16 (E.D. Va. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 3/22/2024. (jpow, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harris v. Unknown Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division DELVONTE E. HARRIS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:23cv599 V. UNKNOWN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this action. In order to state a viable claim under Bivens,' a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of federal authority deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. See Williams v. Burgess,1io. 3:09cvll5 (REP), 2010 WL 1957105, at *2 (E.D. Va. May 13,2010) (citing Goldstein v. Moatz, 364 F.3d 205,210 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004)). Courts must liberally construe pro se civil rights complaints in order to address constitutional deprivations. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147,1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Nevertheless, “[p]rinciples requiring generous construction ofpro se complaints are not. .. without limits.” Beaudett v. City ofHampton, 775 F.2d 1274,1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Plaintiffs current allegations fail to provide the particular constitutional right that was violated by the defendants’ conduct and also fail to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,47 (1957)). 1 Bivensv. Six Unknown Named Agents ofFed. Bureau of Narcotics, 4Q5 U.S. 388 (1971). Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on February 14, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit a particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the entry of the February 14, 2024 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the February 14, 2024 Memorandum Order.^ Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: M. Hannah Richmond, Virginia United States District Judge ^ On February 20, 2024, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff that was executed on February 8, 2024, prior to the entry of the February 14, 2024 Memorandum Order. (ECF No. 15.) The letter does not respond to, or address, the directives set forth in the February 14, 2024 Memorandum Order. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
