Amos v. Scott et al, No. 3:2014cv00821 - Document 7 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 03/27/2015. (ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Amos v. Scott et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MITCHELL AMOS, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. MRS. SCOTT, ^ 3:14CV821 al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Mitchell Amos, forma pauperis, reasons failure set a Virginia filed this 42 U.S.C. for below, to state a the Pursuant to the Court must dismiss a the claim on Court se § 1983 action.^ will dismiss the and in For the action for claim. I. determines inmate proceeding pro STANDARD OF REVIEW Prison Litigation Reform Act any action filed by a action (1) "is which relief frivolous" may be ("PLRA") this prisoner if the Court or (2) "fails granted." 28 to state U.S.C. ^ The statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dockets.Justia.com § 1915(e)(2); includes see claims 28 U.S.C. based upon § 1915A. " 'an The first indisputably standard meritless legal theory,'" or claims where the "'factual contentions are clearly baseless.'" 1992) The Clay v. Yates, (quoting Neitzke v. second standard dismiss under Fed. "A motion sufficiency contests is R. to of a 809 Williams, the Civ. P. Arthur R. 952 Miller, Rule 427 319, (E.D. 327 for a Va. (1989)). motion 12(b) (6) importantly, facts, (4th Cir. U.S. standard under applicability of defenses." 980 F.2d 943, 490 417, to 12(b)(6). dismiss the Supp. familiar complaint; surrounding F. it the merits does of a tests not 1992) resolve claim, Republican Party of N.C. the or the v. Martin, (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff s well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is plaintiff. Cir. see only also to a identifying pleadings Ashcroft V. motion are Iqbal, not the light most Martin, 980 dismiss that, entitled 662, favorable (4th 952. however, can because the at allegations, to 556 U.S. F.2d to 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 Inc. v. Matkari, factual considering conclusions, in Mylan Labs., 1993); applies viewed choose they to the 679 (2009). are This principle and "a to begin no assumption court more of by than truth." The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' notice of what the rests.'" . . Bell Atl. in . order 41, 47 Corp. with complaints "formulaic Id. (1957)). v. Twombly, containing of level," "to id. raise only the (citations omitted). sufficient "labels elements right (citation 550 U.S. cannot Instead, a the defendant 544, (quoting Conley v. Plaintiffs recitation 'give fair claim is and the grounds upon which it (second alteration in original) U.S. to 555 Gibson, satisfy this and of (2007) standard conclusions" a cause of 355 or action." a plaintiff must allege facts to relief omitted), above stating the a speculative claim that "plausible on its face," rather than merely "conceivable." at 570. pleads "A claim factual reasonable has content inference 550 U.S. at that that misconduct alleged." Corp., facial plausibility allows the Iqbal, the when court defendant is the 556 U.S. at 678 in order is Id. plaintiff to draw liable Therefore, 556). a the for the (citing Bell Atl. for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff the must "allege elements of [his or] & Co. , F.3d 324 Microsoft Corp., United States, her claim." 761, 309 facts 765 F.3d 289 F.3d 270, (4th 193, 281 sufficient Bass v. Cir. 213 E.I. 2003) (4th (4th Cir. to state DuPont de Nemours (citing Cir. all 2002); 2002)). Dickson v. lodice v. Lastly, while complaints, 1978), it Gordon does the v. not Court Leeke, act as liberally 574 the F.2d construes 1147, inmate's 1151 advocate, pro (4th sua se Cir. sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise Carroll, 107 concurring); (4th Cir. F.3d 4), Amos surgery!" the face 241, 243 Beaudett v. of his (4th Cir. 1997) City of Hampton, confined "slipped in the 775 (Luttig, J., F.2d 1274, 1278 and (Id. at 5.)^ Rappahannock Regional fell and hurt into [his] knee Jail, and (Compl. to have Amos blames his fall on Manager Scott, and Head of the Kitchen Hatcher ("Defendants") because "they store old grease where food See Brock v. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS Supervisor Tyler, of complaint. 1985). II. While on the stockroom . $2,000,000 in damages. . ." to move pallets (Id.) Amos demands (Id. at 6.) Ill. In order to state a . [Amos has] ANALYSIS viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United ^ The Court has corrected quotations from Amos' Complaint. States. the See Dowe v. capitalization in Total the Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. any constitutional Furthermore, slippery right Defendants' floor § 1983). allegedly alleged fails to Amos fails to identify abridged implicate Fahim, Cir. omitted) ("Federal Defendants. in creating a the either Plyes v. (citations by negligence Fourteenth Amendment.^ 2014) (4th Eighth or 771 F.3d 403, courts 410 (7th consistently have adopted the view that slippery surfaces and shower floors in prisons, without unconstitutional] more, cannot constitute condition of confinement."); Cnty. Texas, No. 94-10553, [an Matthews v. 1994 WL 558999, at *1 Hunt (5th Cir. 1994) (concluding pretrial detainee's "assertion that the floor of the shower was intent wet to and punish" Accordingly, slippery for Amos's is insufficient purposes claims and of the the to establish Fourteenth action will be an Amendment). dismissed. The Clerk will be directed to note the disposition of the action for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ^ It is pretrial not detainee confinement Fourteenth claims clear from the or a for pretrial Amendment convicted rather 834 (4th Cir. 2001) the whether Amos inmate. detainees than applies to convicted prisoners. 829, Complaint are Eighth was Conditions a of governed by the Amendment, which See Patten v. Nichols, 27 4 F. 3d The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Amos. /s/ Robert E. Payne M>L Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date:
]]>
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.
