Lunsford v. Wythe Co. Sheriff et al, No. 7:2018cv00038 - Document 32 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 2/19/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cuERx' :ogFlc:$1q aw.çcgr ATDAFT NLED VIIX V# .' ..' FEB 1ê 2,18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTR ICT O F W R G IM A R O A N O K E DIV ISIO N ANTONIO LUN SFORD, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) W YTH E CTY.SHERIFF,etal., D efendants. JUL BY: Q ,CLERK o CivilA ction N o.7:18-cv-00038 M E M O R AN D UM O PIM ON By:H on.Jackson L.K iser Senior United StatesDistrictJudge AntonioLunsford,aVirginiainmateproceedingproK ,ttledacivilrightsactionptlrsuant to 42 U.S.C.j 1983.1 Thematterbeforethecourtisthemotion to dismissfiled by Defendant W ythe County Sheriff. In Plaintiff's nmended complaint,he asserts that his Eighth Am endment rights were violatedby improperm edicaltreatm entandunsafelivingconditipns.Defendantmovedtodismiss, assertingthatPlaintifffailed to allegepersonalinvolvem ent. Plaintiffresponded,and Defendant filed a reply,maldng thism atterlipe for disposition. After reviewing the record,1willgrant D efendant'sm otion to dismiss. II. StandardsofReview A.Rule12(b)(1) Defendant asserts thatthe complaint lacks subjectmatterjurisdiction. Under Rule Lunsford v. Wythe Co. Sheriff et al 1209(1),ifacourtdeterminesthatitdoesnothavesubjectmatterjuiisdiction overthecase or Doc. 32 controversy,itmustdismisstheaction.SeeArbaughv.Y & H Corp.,546U.S.500,514(2006). The Eleventh Am endm entaffords sovereign im m unity to the states against suits for dnm ages in 11om itinternalcitations, alterations,and quotation marks throughoutthisopinion,unless othenvise noted. SeeUnited Statesv. M arshall,872F. 3d213,217n.6(4th Cir.2017). -- Dockets.Justia.com federalcourt. SeeBlandv.Roberts,730F.3d 368,389 (4th Cir.2013).A findingofsovereign immtmityprecludesfederalcourtsfrom exercising subjectmatterjurisdiction. Hendyv.Bello, 555F.App'x224,226(4thCir.2014).A suitagainstagovernmentofficerinhisoffcialcapacity is considered (ça suitagainstthe official's oftice,''and so officersacting within their authodty generally also receive sovereign im m llnity. W illv.M ich.D ep'tof State Police,491 U .S.58,71 (1989). B.Itule12(b)(6) Defendantalso arguesthatthe com plaintfailsto state a claim upon which reliefm ay be grantedptlrsuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedlzre 12(b)(6). A com plaintneed only contain G$a short,plain statementof the claim showing thatthe pleaderisentitledtorelief.''Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2).W hen evaluatingaRule12(b)(6)motionto dismissforfailure to state a claim ,a courtmustacceptastrue al1well-pleaded allegations. See Vitol.S.A.v.PrimeroseShippingCo.,708 F.3d 527,539(4th Cir.2013);see also Erickson v. Pardus,551U.S.89,94(2007).çtWhileacomplaintattackedbyaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismiss doesnotneed detailed factualallegations,a plaintiff sobligation to providethe groundsofhis entitlem entto reliefrequires m ore than labels and conclusions,and a form ulaic recitation ofthe elementsofacauseofactionwillnotdo.''BellAtl.Cop .v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555(2007). Stated differently,to survive a m otion to dism iss, $&a com plaintm ustcontain sufficientfacm al matter,accepted astnze,to state aclaim toreliefthatisplausibleon itsface.'' Ashcroftv.lqbal, 556U.S.662,678(2009). A courtneed not Cçaccept the legalconclusions draw n from the facts''or Ctaccept as true unw arranted inferences,tm reasonable conclusions, or argtunents.''E .Shore M kts.sInc.v.J.D . Assocs.Ltd.P'ship,213 F.3d 175,180(4th Cir.2000). CTactualallegationsmustbeenoughto raisearighttoreliefabovethespeculative level,''Twombly,550 U.S.at555,with a11allegations in thecom plainttaken astrueand a1lreasonableinferencesdrawn in theplaintiff'sfavor,Chaov. RivendellW oods.lnc.,415 F.3d 342,346 (4th Cir.2005). Rule 12(b)(6)doeslsnotrequire heightenedfactpleadingofspecifics,butonly enoughfactstostateaclaim toreliefthatisplausible on its face.'' Twom bly,550 U .S.at570. M aking the plausibility determination is $&a context- specific task thatrequiresthereviewing courtto draw on itsjudicialexperience and common sense.'' lqbal,556 U.S.at679. C.Pro/ Pleadings TheplaintiffisproceedingproK and,thus,entitledtoaliberalconstnzction ofthepleading. . See.e.c.,Erickson,551 U.S.at90-95.However,Stprinciplesrequiring generousconstruction of pro . K complaintsare not...withoutlim its.''Beaudettv.City ofHnm pton,775 F.2d 1274,1278 (4th Cir.1985).TheFourthCircuithasexplainedthattGthoughproK litigantscannot,ofcourse, beexpectedtofrnm elegalissueswith theclarity andprecision ideally evidentin thework ofthose trainedin law,neithercandistrictcourtsberequiredtoconjureup anddecideissuesnrverfairly presented tothem .''Id.at1276;seeKalderon v.Finkelstein,No.08 Civ 9440,2010 W L 3359473, at*1n.1 (S.D.N.Y.Aug.24,2010)(Cçplaintiffs complaintbelongsto the everything-but-thelcitchen sink schoolofthought.'' KThe complaintis extrem ely difficultto follow because ofits extrem e length alzd purported factual detail. The factual allegations are often repetitive, inconsistent,andcontiadictedbydocumentsreferencedinthecomplaint.'). D.42U.S.C.j1983 çl'l-ostateaclaim tmderj 1983,aplaintiffmustallegetheviolationofarightsecuredby the Constitution atld law s of the U nited States,and m ustshow thatthe alleged depdvation was committedby aperson actingtmdercolorofstatelaw.''W estv.Atlcins,487U.S.42,48(1988). Notably,a plaintiffmustsufficiently allege a defendant's personalactor om ission leading to a deprivation ofa federalright. See Fisherv.W ash.M etro.AreaTransitAuthor.,690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43(4thCir.1982),abrocatedonothergroundsbyCty.ofItiversidev.M cLauchlin,500U.S. 44(1991).Negligentdeprivationsarenotactionableunderj1983.Seese.g.,Danielsv.W illinms, 474U.S.327,330(1986)4Pinkv.Lester,52F.3d73,77 (4th Cir.1995). 111. D iscussion A . Sovereign Im m unity Defendantarguesthathe isimmtmefrom suitinhisofficialcapacity. Iagree. SeeBland, 730F.3dat389(sovereignimmtmitybarssuitsfordnmagesinfederalcourt);W ill,491U.S.at71 (sovereignimmllnityextendstostateofficialssuedintheirofficialcapacity);EstateofHarvevv. RoanokeCity Sheriff'sOftke,No.7:06cv00603,2007 W L 602091,at*3 (W .D.Va.Feb.23, 2007)(1çln Virginia,suitsagainsta Sherifforherdeputiesin theirofficialcapacitiesand suits against a Sheriff's Office are suits against the state''for Eleventh Amendment puposes.). Therefore,to any extentPlaintiffattem ptsto sueDefendantin hisofficialcapacity as Sheriff,or theSheriffsDepartm entasawhole,Defendantisentitledto sovereign im mlm ity,arld Iwillgrant themotiontodismissastothoseclaimsplzrsuanttoRule12(b)(1). B . PersonalLiability Inhisnmended complaint,Plaintiffstatesthefollowing:(1)tlimpropermedicaltreatment unfaircruelanldjunusualpunishmentsuffered formonthswithoutproperdoctortreatmentfor conditionseven afterbeing hospitalized twice suffering breathing problems,respgirajtor/';(2) Ciunsafe living conditionsplumlbjing problems,water leftstanding,firesno alarms sounded. Black mold,chem icals being used withoutproper venting roaches allin kitchen sewer water backingup in cellsangd)kitchen'';and (3)çsleftto sufferwithoutC-PAP machinethereforestop 4 breathing in sleep task force W ythgej Co.Sheriff broke withoutmachine may more health problemsand lef4stillthrowingup in sleepalsohigh hernianothingbeingdoneleftinpain anldl suffering.'' Am .Com pl.2,ECF N o.9. Although acomplaintneed onlyprovideççashort,plainstatem entoftheclaim showingthat thepleaderisentitledtorelief,''Plaintifffailstoallegeanyclaim sagainstany defendantthatwould entitlehim torelieftmderj1983.Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2)' ,seeBassv.E.l.DupontdeNemours& Co.,324 F.3d 761,765 (4th Cir.2003)(CiW hile a plaintiffisnotcharged with pleading facts sufûcienttoprovehercase,asan evidentirymatter,in hercomplaint,aplaintiffk requiredto allege facts that supporta claim for relief.''). Even if a broken C-PAP machine stated a constitutionalinjtuy,PlaintiffhasnotallegedfactsdemonstratingthatDefendant'sactionsresulted in a broken naacbine. See lqbal,556 U.S.at 676 (stating that a (laintiffmustplead facts demonstratingthatadefendant'sown,individualactionsviolatedtheConstitm ion.).Heappears to assertthasamem beroftheW ytheCotmty Sheriffstask forcebrokehisC-PAP m achine. That allegation doesnotstateaclaim ofpersonalliabilityagainstDefendanttmderj1983.Therefore, Plaintifffailsto state aclaim,and Iwillgrantthemotion todism issastopersonalliability claims againstDefendant. c supervisory Liabilityz For supervisory liability,a plaintiff mustallege facts dem onstrating the three-pronged Shaw v.Stroud,13F.3d791(4thCir.1994)test: (1)thatthesupervisorhadactualorconstnzctiveknowledgethathis subordinate w as engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and tmreasonable risk of constitmional injury to citizens like the plaintiff;(2)thatthesupervisor'sresponsetothatknowledgewasso inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or tacit 2To any extentPlaintiffarguesthatDefendantfailed to properly supervise his subordinates,theclaim mustfailbecauserespondeatsuoeriorisnotactionableviaj 1983.Seepe.g.,lubal,556U.S.at676. authorization ofthealleged offensivepractices,and (3)thatthere wasan affirmativecausallink betweenthesupervisor'sinaction and theparticularconstitutionalinjurysufferedbytheplaintiff. Id.at799. Plaintifffailsto allegethatDefendanthad any knowledgeofasubordinate'sconduct, thatDefendant's response was deliberately indifferent,orthatthere was a causallink between Defendant's inaction and the constimtionalinjury. lnstead,he merely statesthata task force m emberbrokehisC-PAP m achineandthen he listsseveralissuesregarding the conditionsofhis conûnement.Therefore,Plaintifffailstostateaclaim ofsupervisoryliabilityunderj1983.3 IV . Fortheforegoing reasons,IwillgrantDefendants'motion to dism iss.4 3To theextentPlaintiffattem ptsto am end hiscom plaintby addressing itsdeficienciesin hisresponse, itisnotappropriate to am end a com plaintthrough briefing. See Barclay W hite Skanska-Inc.v.Battelle M emoriallnstitute,262F.App'x 556,563 (4th Cir.2008);SmartW earableTechs.V.Fitbit lnc.,274 F. Supp.3c1371,n.3(W .D.Va.2017).Eventhoughheisapro#:litigant,hewasawareoftheamendment procedureconsideringheamendedhiscomplaintoncebeforeinthiscase. gseeECFNo.9.1 Regardless, thenew allegationsin hisresponseto them otionto dism isswould also failto statea claim becausehe does notallege any non-conclusory facts demonstrating thatDefendantw asdeliberately indifferentoraw are of any unsafe conditions. Specifically,Plaintiffprovides: ' SheriffDunagan is the head supervisor,or overseelsq the W ythe Co. SheriffsDepalm entwho is also directly responsibleforthe housing of. . . inmates at the Ejailj. Therefore not only directly but indirectly responsible forliving conditions,food conditions,m edicaltreatment,and . . . al so the actions ofhis officers,and the W ythe Co.Sheriff's Ofdce angd)taskforce. Therefore he notonly had directbutindirectactualor constructiveknowledgeofhissubordinatesconductthatposed apervasive andurtreasonableriskofconstitutionalinjury. Resp.totheM ot.toDismiss2,ECFNo.26.Plaintiff's&tformulaicrecitation oftheelementsof(hisjcause ofactionwillnotgbetakenastrue.q'' Twombly,550U.S.at555.Thus,hisnew allegationsfailtostatea claim . 4ln hisamended com plaint, Plaintiffalso st>tes:(swillnotrem rn requestfonns and willnotgive m e grievancesonthemattersspoketoCol.BowmanangdqLt.Underwoodstillwillnotret' urnthepaperwork from anydepartmentsginceqfiling 1983.',(Am.Compl.1.)First,toanyextentPlaintiffallegesthatmedical requestformswere notreturned to him,he failsto state a cognizable j 1983 claim againstDefendant becausehedoesnotallegefactsdem onstrating personalorsupervisory liability.SeeIqbal,556U .S.at676; Shaw,13 F.3dat799.Second,Plaintiffisnotentitled to havehisgrievanceshandled in any particularway, and officialsrefusing him grievancesdoesnot,by itself,im plicatehisconstitutionalrights. Bookerv.S.C. Dep'tofCorr.,855F.3d 533,542 (4th Cir.2017)(lsllqnmatesdo nothavea constitutionalentitlementto and/ordue.processinterestinaccessingagrievanceprocedure''). The Clerkisdirectedtosendacopy ofthism emorandllm opinion and accom panying order to the parties. EN TER ED this lA* o*dayofFebnmry2019. , 7 i, SEN R ITED S A TES D ISTRICT JUD GE
]]>
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.
