Lunsford v. Wythe Co. Sheriff et al, No. 7:2018cv00038 - Document 30 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 2/19/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ekNNNi .A e: TlMN le:#Qllk .ùax /j::jp' ,#& ,' pluen IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTER N D ISTRICT O F W R G INIA R O A N O K E D IV ISIO N AN TO N IO LITN SFO R D, Plaintiff, FEB ! 2912 JUL . on * sz , c RK CivilA ction N o.7:18-cv-00038 M EM O M ND U M O PIN IO N V. W YTHE CTY.SH ERIFF,etal., D efendants. By:H on.Jackson L.K iser SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge AntonioLunsford,aVirginiainmateproceedingproK,tzedacivilrightsactionpttrsuant to42U.S.C.j 1983.1 Thematterbeforethecotlrtisthemotionto dismissfiledby Defendants SuperintendentW inston,Dr.M oses,LisaFerguson,zandtheM edicalDepartm ent. ln Plaintiff s nm ended com plaint, he asserts that his Eighth Am endm ent rights w ere violatedby im propermedicaltreatm ent3andtmsafeliving conditions.4 TheDefendantsm oved to dismiss,asserting thatPlaintifffailed to allege theirpersonalinvolvem ent. Plaintiffresponded, and Defendantsfiled areply,maldng thism atterripefordisposition. Afterreviewing therecord, 1willgrantDefendants'm otion to dism iss. 11omitinternalcitations,alterations,and quotation m arks throughoutthis opinion,unless otherwise noted.SeeUnited Statesv.M arshall,872F.3d213,217n.6(4th Cir.2017). Lunsford v. Wythe Co. Sheriff et al Doc. 30 2Plaintiffm isspelled Ferguson'snam eas(T urguson''in hiscomplaint.1usethecorrectspelling in this opinion. 3Plaintiffallegesthathe needed a CPAP machine and he suffered breathing problem sand respiratory issues.(Am.Compl.2 (ECF No.9q). 4H is contentions ofunconstitutionalliving conditions include:plumbing problems,standing water, fireswithoutalannssounding,black mold,chem icaluse withoutproperventilation,roaches,and kitchen sewerwaterbackingup into cells.(Am.Compl.2.) Dockets.Justia.com II. Standards ofR eview A. 12(b)(6)M otion toDismiss Defendantsarguethatthecomplaintfailsto stateaclaim upon which reliefm ay begranted plzrsuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6). A com plaint need only contain $Ga short,plain statem ent of the claim show ing that the pleaderisentitledtorelief.''Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2).W hen evaluatingaRule12(b)(6)motionto dism issforfailureto statea claim ,a courtm ustacceptastrue al1well-pleaded allegations. See VitoleS.A.v.Primerose Shipping Co.,708F.3d 527,539 (4th Cir.2013);seealso Erickson v. Pardus,551U.S.89,94(2007).tiW hileacomplaintattackedbyaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismiss doesnotneed detailed factualallegations,a plaintiffsobligation to provide the grotmds ofhis entitlem entto reliefrequiresm orethan labels and conclusions,an 'd aformulaic recitation ofthe elementsofacauseofactionwillnotdo.''BellAtl.Com,v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555(2007). Stated differently,to survive a m otion to dism iss,((a com plaint m ust contain sufficient factual m atter,accepted astrue,to state aclaim to reliefthatisplausibleon itsface.'' Ashcroftv.lqbal, 556U.S.662,678(2009). A courtneed notSçacceptthe legalconclusionsdrawn from the facts''or çdacceptastnze tmwarranted inferences,llnreasonable conclusions,or argtlments.''E.Shore M lds..Inc.v.J.D . Assocs.Ltd.P'ship,213 F.3d 175,180(4th Cir.2000).GTactualallegationsmustbeenoughto raisearightto reliefabovethespeculativelevel,''Twom blv,550 U.S.at555,with a11allegations in the com plainttaken astrue and a1lreasonable inferencesdraw n in the plaintiff s favor,Chao v. lkivendellW oodssInc.,415 F.3d 342,346 (4th Cir.2005). Rule 12(b)(6)doestdnotrequire heightenedfactpleading ofspecifics,butonlyenough factstostateaclaim to reliefthatisplausible on its face.'' Twom bly,550 U.S.at570. M aking the plausibility determ ination is Gta context- 2 specitk task thatrequiresthereviewing courtto draw on itsjudidalexperience and common sense.'' lqbal,556 U .S.at679. B. ProS Pleadings Theplaintiffisproceedingproçand,thus,entitledtoaliberalconstructiop ofthepleading. See.e.:.,Erickson,551 U.S.at90-95. However,Gtprinciplesrequiring generousconstnlction of pro .K complaintsarenot...withoutlim its. ''Beaudettv.City ofHampton,775 F.2d 1274,1278 (4th Cir.1985).TheFourth CircuithasexplainedthatçcthoughproK litigantscnnnot,ofcourse, beexpectedtofrnm elegalissueswith theclarity andprecision ideally evidentin thework ofthose trained inlaw,neithercan districtcourtsberequiredtoconjureupanddecideissuesneverfairly presentedtothem .''Id.at1276;seeKalderon v.Finkelstein,No.08 Civ 9440,2010 W L 3359473, at*1n.1 (S.D.N.Y.Aug.24,2010)(Gçplaintiffscomplaintbelongsto the everything-but-thekitchen sink schoolofthought.'' Gtf' he com plaintisextrem ely difficultto follow because ofits extrem e length and purported factual detail. The factual allegations are often repetitive, inconsistent,andcontradictedbydocumentsreferencedinthecomplaint.'). C.42U.S.C.j1983 (GTOstateaclaim underj 1983,aplaintiffmustallegetheviolation ofarightsecuredby the Constitution and laws ofthe United States,and mustshoW thatthe alleged deprivation was committedby apersonzactingundercolorofstatelaw.''W estv.Atkins,487U.S.42,48(1988). Notably,a plaintiffmustsufficiently allege a defendant'spersonalactorom ission leading to a deprivation of a federalright. See Fisherv.W ash.M etro.A rea TransitA uthor.,690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43(4thCir.1982),abrogatedonothergroundsbyCty.ofRiversidev.M cLauahlin,500U.S. 44(1991).Negligentdeprivationsarenotactionablelmderj1983.See,e.R.,Danielsv.W illinms, 474U.S.327,330(1986);Pinkv.Lester,52F.3d73,77(4th Cir.1995). 3 e . a . . 111. ' D iscussion ln hisnm ended complaint,Plaintiffdoesnotallegepersonalinvolvementon behalfofany defendant. In fact,he only m entionsDefendantsin thecasecaption. Although a complaintneed onlyprovide1:ashort,plain statementoftheclaim showingthatthepleaderisentitledtoreliet'' Plaintiff fails to allege any claim againstany defendantthatwould entitle him to relief tmder j 1983.SeeBassv.E.1.DupontdeNemours& Co.,324F.3d761,765(4th Cir.2003)(siW hilea plaintiffisnotcharged with pleading factssufficientto prove hercase,as an evidentiary m atter, inhercomplaint,aplaintiffk requiredtoallegefactsthatsupportaclaim forre1ief.'').5Therefore, lwillgrantthe motion to dism iss.6 IV . Fortheforegoing reasons,1willgrantDefendants'm otion to dismiss. Theclerk isdirectedto senda copy ofthism emorandum opinion and accompanying order to theparties. ( -Uday ofFebruary,2019. ENTERED this - SEN O R UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU DG E 51alsonotethattheMedicalDepartmentisnota(ûperson''subjecttosuitunderj1983. See.e.g., Barley v.New RiverValleyReg'lJailM ed.Dep't,No.7:16cv00280,2017W ' L 888367,at*2 (W .D.Va. March6,2017)(slBecauseamedicaldepartmentisnotalegalentity,itisnotadperson'subjecttosuitunder j 1983.'9);Layman v.M ed.New RiverValleyReg'lJail,No.7:18CV001842018,2018U.S.Dist.LEXIS 99933,at*1-2 (W .D.Va.June 14,2018)(Gl Neitherthejailnoritsmedicaldepartment,however,isa çperson'subjectto suitunderj 1983.''). 6Tothe extentPlaintiffattemptsto am end hiscomplaintby addressing itsdeficienciesin hisresponse, itis notappropriate to am end a complaintthrough briefing. See Barclay W hite Skanska,lnc.v.Battelle M emoriallnstitute,262 F.App'x 556,563 (4th Cir.2008). Eventhough heisapro. K litigant,hewas aw are ofthe amendm entprocedure considering he am ended his complaintonce before in this case. See ECF N o.9.Regardless,thenew allegationsin hisresponseto themotion to dism isswould also failto state a claim because he does not allege any non-conclusory facts dem onstrating that Defendants were deliberately indifferentoraware ofany unsafeconditions. . - 4
]]>
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.
