Cheatham v. Clarke, No. 3:2017cv00790 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 12/13/2017. (mailed copy to pro se plaintiff) (nbrow)

Download PDF
Cheatham v. Clarke Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SYLVESTER M. CHEATHAM, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:17CV790 HAROLD W. CLARKE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose 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 under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. See Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Furthermore, "[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must [allege] that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). "Where a complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of the defendant and the complaint is silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing in the caption, the complaint is properly dismissed, even under the liberal construction to be given pro se complaints." Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (citing U.S. ex rel. Brzozowski v. Randall, 281 F. Supp. 306, 312 (E.D. Pa. 1968)). Here, Plaintiff names Harold W. Clarke as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff fails to name Clarke in the body of the Complaint and alleges no specific act or conduct by Clarke. Accordingly, the Dockets.Justia.com action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Clarke. It also appears that all of the events leading to this action occurred in the River North Correctional Center, which is located in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Thus, it is likely that the appropriate venue for this action is the Western District of Virginia, and is not the Eastern District of Virginia. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: I 2)nJI ) Richmond, Isl John A. Gibney, Jr. United States Dis · t Ju 2

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.