Hidalgo v. Back et al, No. 3:2016cv00264 - Document 25 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 02/03/2017. Copy sent to Plaintiff.(ccol, ) Modified on 2/6/2017 (ccol, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hidalgo v. Back et al Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA FFB-^PO!/ Richmond Division JORDAN HIDALGO, CLERK. U.S. DiSTRiCT COURT RICHMOND.VA Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16CV264-HEH V. MAJOR PHYLLIS BACK, et ai. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting undercolor of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. SeeDowe v. TotalAction AgainstPoverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F,3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). In his current Complaint, Plaintiffdoes not identify the particular constitutional right that was violated by the defendants' conduct. Moreover, Plaintiffs current allegations fail to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. See BellAll. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conleyv. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,47 (1957)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on January 11, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. Dockets.Justia.com The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the January 11, 2017, Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the January 11, 2017, Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is free to file a new action that amplifies the factual and legal basis upon which his claims rest. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ HENRY E.HUDSON Date:jg,L.3^^ Richmond, Virginia UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
