Rhodes v. Monk, No. 7:2011cv00366 - Document 2 (W.D. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Samuel G. Wilson on 7/29/2011. (tvt)

Download PDF
ct s OFFI t. DI K L Ev CE )B. ST. AT ROANOKE, VA FI CD t . I TH E UN I N TED STA TES D I STR I CO UR T CT FO R TH E W EST ER N DI STR I T O F V I G I I C R N A ROANOKE DI I O N V SI J 2q 2 1 UL 21 J A ULI BK D C i lA cton N o.7: vi i 11cv00366 PAU L RH O D ES, Pl nt f , ai i f M E M O M ND U M O PIN IO N M ONK, D ef endant . By:Sam ue G .W is l l on Unied St esD i ri Judge t at st ct Pa Rhode ,aVigi a i ae pr e ng pr K ,t l d t s ci lrght ac i pur ua t ul s r ni nm t oc edi o i e hi vi i s ton s nt o . 42U. C.j1 3 s ki uns ctedrle .Rhode ha nots tedpa ntoft flngfe S. 98 ee ng pe ii eif s s ubmit yme he ii e a t ,t c tlbeal co tue hi co an asa rques t pr e i f mapa rs nd, hus he our i rly nsr s s mplit e t o oc ed n or upei a gr nt t tr ques . H oweve , he c ttnds t tRhodes ha nots a e a cl i upon w hi h nd a s ha e t r t our i ha s ttd am c r le ma b g a td a ,t r fr ,d s se t i a to wih u p eu ie p ru n t 2 eif y e rn e nd heeo e imis s h s cin t o t rj dc u s a t o 8 U. C.j1 5()2)B)i) S. 91 e( ( (i. 1 . lhode m a no c z bl a lga i i hi c l s kes ognia e le tons n s ompli . 1 To stt a cli f r r le ant ae a m o ei f unde 51 r 983,a pl ntf mus alege fcsi c tng t tpli ifhasbe de i ofrght ai if t l a t ndiai ha antf en prved i s gua an e d by t Co tt i o l w s of t Unie St t s and t t t s de i ton r ule r te he ns iuton r a he td ae ha hi pr va i es t d fom c r onduc co m itd by a pe s a tng unde c o ofsa e l w. W es v.At ns 487 U . t m te r on c i r olr tt a t ki , S. 42 ( 988 . Rhode c ai doesnotc ti a sngl c tt i cai a i ta 1 ) s' ompl nt onan i e onsiutonal l m gans nyone. Ac or ngl t cour f c di y, he t mds t tRhodesha f ie t sa e a c tt i lcli upon whih ha s al d o tt onsiutona a m c rle ma beg a tda d te eo e t ec u t imis shsc mplitwih u p eu ie eif y rn e n ,h rf r ,h o r ds se i o an t o t rj dc . 1I hi S ae e oft Cli ,'Rho e sae :tun n wnna lo 1//0rc iel rq etn v rrs n e . n s l tm nt he am ' d s tts û k o st l me n 27 1 e ev d) e u s, e e epo d d Alohedtet n c n eo as sn e (ilrq s, e e a s rd Ne e dd(loh r b tl du tl n s a rame t ou slr lo e d d sc e uetn v r n wee . v r i an te, u i niMo k e wa n x l da l o n a e de . sc He e ' s e t i l c mmo f r it (il nsy. e ' iY, s CLERK W 1 11. Fo t er a o ssae t c u tds s e Rh d s c mpan wi u p eu iep ru n r h e s n ttd,he o r imis s o e ' o lit t t rj dc u s a t ho t 28U. C.j1 5( ( ( (i. o S. 91 e)2)B)i) TheCl r i die t d t s ac o t sM e or ndum Opi on a a ompa ng e k s r c e o end opy f hi m a ni nd cc nyi Or rt pl ntf . de o ai i f ENTER : Thi s da ofJ y,2011 y ul . d ni dS ae DititJ d e t tts src u g e a

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.