Matthews v. Hull et al, No. 1:2013cv00450 - Document 17 (E.D. Va. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and Order.ORDERED that the complaint be and is conditionally filed pending compliance with the requirements of this Order; that defendants' Motion to Dismiss 2 be and is GRANTED IN PART, as to plaintiff's claims pur suant to the Virginia Tort Claim Act, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART, as to plaintiff's cruel and unusual punishment claim and his denial of access to the court claim; that plaintiff's Motion to Remand 6 be and is DENIED; that Plain tiff's Motion to Amend 12 be and is GRNATED. Plaintiff shall particularize and amend his constitutional claims by completeing and filing a form § 1983 complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order; that within 30 days of the date of this Order, plaintiff complete and return the attached affidavit concerning his exhaustion of his institution's administrative grievance process; that plaintiff's failure to comply with any part of this order within 30 days from the date o f this Order or failure to notify the court immediately in the event he is transferred, released, or otherwise relocated, may result in the dismissal of this complaint pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 7/1/2013. (rban, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Matthews v. Hull et al Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TI EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Alexander Otis Matthews, Plaintiff, l:13cv450(LO/JFA) v. Ted Hull, et ah, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Alexander Otis Matthews, a Virginia inmate proceeding p_ro se, has filed a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 alleging that staff atNorthern Neck Regional Jail violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff has submitted the requisite filing fee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Me commenced this action by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia. Defendants Ted Hull, R. Michelle Lewis, and Martin filed a Notice of Removal and Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in this Court on April 11, 2013. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, a brief in opposition of the Motion to Dismiss, and Motion to Amend the Complaint. Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion to Remand and accompanying brief. For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs Motion to Remand will be denied; and the Motion to Dismiss will be granted, in part, as to the claims pursuant to the Virginia Tort Claims Act (VTCA) and denied without prejudice, in part, as to plaintiffs cruel and unusual punishment claim and his denial of access to the court claim. Plaintiff must particularize and amend these claims, and provide evidence that he completely exhausted his administrative remedies of these claims. After 1Because plaintiffs claims are against state officials, his suit will be construed as brought pursuant to only 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and not, as he alleges, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which extends § 1983 liability to federal officials. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
