Booker, Jr. v. Det. M. Luck et al, No. 1:2014cv00833 - Document 59 (E.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 9/8/2017. (rban, )

Download PDF
Booker, Jr. v. Det. M. Luck et al Doc. 59 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Walter Delaney Booker, Plaintiff, l:14cv833 (JCC/TCB) v. Sgt. S. Johnson, Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION Walter Delaney Booker, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by employees of the Portsmouth Police Department during two separate incidents on June 14,2008 and September 9,2008.' In addition, plaintiff alleges the state law claims of assault and battery, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, intentional inflictionof emotional distress, and negligence. Compl. By Orderdated June 25,2015, plaintiffs FifthAmendment claims and his claims stemming from his September 9,2008 arrest were dismissed with prejudice,2 his complaint was filed, and the Clerk was directed to send Requests for Waiver of According to the Capias submitted as Dkt. No. 1,Ex. D, plaintiff was arrested, pursuant to a July 3,2008, indictment, on September 9, 2008. In the Order dated June 25, 2016, Dkt. No. 13, the dates of plaintiffs arrest and indictment appear to have beentransposed and the arrest date for plaintiff appears as September3, 2008, rather than September 9, 2008. Although plaintiffs Sixth Amendment claims were not expressly dismissed in the June 25, 2008 Order, those claims stem from plaintiffs allegations that certain defendants failed to advise him of his right to counsel by reading him his Mirandarights. As discussed in this Court's June 25, 2015 Order, Dkt. No. 13, Miranda related claims may not be brought in a § 1983 action. Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that Sergeant Johnson, the only remaining defendant in this action, was involved in plaintiffs September9, 2008 arrest. Therefore, for the purposes of this opinion plaintiffs Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims will be considered dismissed. 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.