Malpica v. Kincaid et al, No. 1:2021cv00417 - Document 33 (E.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION in re Motions to Dismiss (Dkts 13, 15, & 19). Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 2/18/2022. (dvanm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Malpica v. Kincaid et al Doc. 33 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 193 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division MARIO MALPICA, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. l:21-cv-417 V. STACEY A. KINCAID,et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION In this action, Plaintiff, by counsel, alleges in his Complaint: (i) deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983,(ii) failure to accommodate a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act("ADA") and Rehabilitation Act, and (iii) gross negligence under Virginia law. At issue now are three Motions to Dismiss by Defendants. Specifically, Defendant Emil Ghali(Dkt. 13), Defendants Stacey Kincaid and James Santmyers (Dkt. 15), and Defendant Theresa Eugene(Dkt. 19)have each moved to dismiss some or all ofthe claims asserted against them in Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss have been fully briefed and argued at a hearing on August 27, 2021 and are, accordingly, ripe for disposition. I. In resolving a motion to dismiss, a court "must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, the following facts are derived from the allegations set forth in the Complaint. • At all relevant times, beginning on May 29,2019,Plaintiff Mario Malpica was incarcerated by the Fairfax County Sheriffs Office at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center ("FCADC"). • Defendant Stacey Kincaid serves as the Sheriffof Fairfax County and accordingly oversees 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 16 PageID# 194 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 16 PageID# 195 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 4 of 16 PageID# 196 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 5 of 16 PageID# 197 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 6 of 16 PageID# 198 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 7 of 16 PageID# 199 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 8 of 16 PageID# 200 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 9 of 16 PageID# 201 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 10 of 16 PageID# 202 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 11 of 16 PageID# 203 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 12 of 16 PageID# 204 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 13 of 16 PageID# 205 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 14 of 16 PageID# 206 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 15 of 16 PageID# 207 Case 1:21-cv-00417-TSE-JFA Document 33 Filed 02/18/22 Page 16 of 16 PageID# 208
]]>
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.
