Tilley v. Patrick County Jail et al, No. 7:2018cv00073 - Document 21 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 2/21/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' 8 OFFICEU.S.Dl *K COURT ATDANVILLE,VA FILED FEB 2 l2219 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTW CT O F W R G INIA R O A N O K E D IW SIO N GM W W AYNE TILLEY,JR., Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) y. PATRICK CTY.JM L,etaI., D efendants. JULIA C D DLEM C RK szxss jw DEP CivilActionNo.7:18-cv-00073 M EM ORANDUM OPINION ' By:Hon.JacltsonL.Kiser SeniorUniied StatesDistrictJudge Gary W ayne Tilley,Jr.,a Virginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,filed a civilrights action . ptzrsuantto 42 U.S.C.j 1983 againstthree defendants:Patlick County Jail,Patrick Cotmty SheriffsOffice,and SheniffDan Smith. 1. Background Plaintiffallegesthatthedefendants(1)administered the wrongmedication and lefthim unattended fortllrçehourson M ay 19,2017;and (2)hewasnotafforded aproperkosherdiet. Defendantstileda 12(b)(6)motiontodismiss,Plaintiffresponded,andDefendantsrepliedtothe response,mnking ihis matter ripe for disposition. A fter review ing the record,I w ill grant D efendants'm otion to dism iss. II. StandardsofR eview A. 12(b)(6)M otion toDismiss Defendantsarguethatthecomplaintfailsto stateaclaim upon which reliefm aybegranted Tilley v. Patrick County Jail et al pursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure 12(b)(6). Doc. 21 A complaintneed only contain :<a shozt plain statem entof the claim showing thatthe pleaderisentitledtorelief.''Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2).W hen evaluatingaRule12(b)(6)motionto dismiss forfailureto state a claim ,a courtmustacceptastrue a1lwell-pleaded allegations. See VitolsS.A.v.Primerose ShippingCo.,708 F.3d 527,539 (4th Cir.2013), .seealso Erickson v. Dockets.Justia.com Pardus,551U.S.89,94(2007).dtW hileacomplaintattackedbyaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismiss doesnotneed detailed factualallegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grotmds oflzis entitlem entto reliefrequiresm ore than labelsand conclusions,and a formulaic recitation ofthe elementsofaoauseofaction willnotdo.''BellAtl. Corp.v.Twomblv,550U.S.544,555(2007). Stated differently,to sm vive a m otion to dism iss,&;a complaintmustcontain suftk ientfadual m atter,accepted astrue,to state a claim to reliefthatisplausible on itsface.'' Ashcroftv.Iqbal, 556U.S.662,678(2009). A courtneed notdtacceptthe legalconciusionsdrawn from the facts''ortlacceptasm ze unwarranted inferences,unreasonable conclusions,or argum ents.''E.Shore M ltts..Inc.v.J.D . Assocs.Ltd.P'ship,213 F.3d 175,180 (4th Cir.2000).GTactualallegationsmustbeenoughto raise arightto reliefabovethespeculativelevely''Twombly,550 U.S.at555,with al1allegations in thecomplainttaken astrueand allreasonableinferencesdrawn in theplaintiff'sfavor,Chao v. RivendellW oods.Inc.,415 F.3d 342,346 (4th Cir.2005). Rule 12(b)(6)doesiinotrequire heightenedfactpleadingofspecifics,butonly enoughfactsto stateaclaim toreliefthatisplausible on its face.'' Twombly,550 U .S.at570. M aking the plausibility detennination is&(a çontext- specitk task thatrequiresthereviewing courtto draw on itsjudicialexperiencemld common sense.'' D bal,556U .S.at679. B. ProS Pleadings Theplaintiffisproceedingpro K and,thus,entitledtoaliberalconstnzction ofthepleading. . See.e.a.,Erickson,551 U .S.at90-95. H ow ever,ççprinciples requiring generous constnzction of pro #.q com plaintsare not...w ithoutlim its.'' Beaudettv.Citv ofH nm pton,775 F.2d 1274,1278 (4thCir.1985).TheFourthCircuithasexplainedthatCçthoug!lpro#-qlitigantscnnnot,ofcourse, beexpectedto frnm elegalissueswiththeclarityandprecision ideally evidentinthework ofthose trainedin law,neithercandistrictcourtsberequiredtoconjtlreup anddecideissuesneverfairly presentedtothem .''ld.at1276;seeKalderon v.Finkelstein, N o.08 Civ 9440,2010 W L 3359473, at*l n.1 (S.D.N.Y.Aug.24,2010) (ttplaintiffscomplaintbelongsto the everything-but-thekitchen sink schoolofthought.'' Et-f' he complaintisextrem ely difficultto follow because ofits extrem e length and purported factual detail. The factual allegations are often repetitive, inconsistent,andcontradidedbydocmnentsreferencedinthecomplaint''). C.42 U.S.C.j1983 çç' l-o stateadaim underj1983,aplaintiffmustallegetheviolation ofarightsecuredby the Constitution and laws ofthe United States,arld m ustshow thatthe alleged deprivation was committedbyapersonactingundercolorofstatelam ''W estv.Atldns,487U.S.42,48(1988). Notably,a plaintiffm ustsufficiently allege a defendant'spersonalactorom ission leading to a deprivation of a federalright. See Fisherv.W ash.M etro.Area TransitA uthor.,690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43(4thCir.1982),abrogatedonothergrotmdsbvCty.ofRiversidev.M ctaaughlin,500U.S. 44(1991).Negligentdeprivationsarenotactionableunderj1983.Seese.g.,Danielsv.W illinms, 474 U.S.327,330(1986);Pinkv.Lester,52F.3d73,77 (4thCir.1995).Defendantsarguethat thecomplaintfailsto state aclaim upon which reliefm ay be granted pttrsuantto FederalRule of CivilProcedure12(b)(6). 111. D iscussion A . Patrick County Jailand Patrick C ounty Sherifrs O ffice Atthethreshold,neitherthePatrick CotmtyJailnorthePatrick Cotmty SheriffsOftice are entitiesthatmaybesuedmlderj1983.Seese.:.,M ccoy v.ChesapeakeCorr.Ctr.,788F.Supp. 890,894 (E.D.Va.1992)(assertingthatprisonsandjailsareçiarenrmsofthestateforEleventh Amendmentpurposes and thusnot tpersons'under j1983'');see also Rutledce v.Town of Chathnm,No.4:10CV000054,2010 W L 4569913,at*1 (W .D.Va.Nov.5,2010) (çt(1)t is impossibletosuealocalpolicedepartment(underj1983jinVirginiabecause,asamatteroflaw, thereisnoentitythatoan besued.'').TheTefore,Iwillgrantthemotiontodismissastoal1claims againstthese defendants. B. SheriffD an Sm ith Forhis claim againstSheriffDm1Sm ith,Tilley assertsthatSm ith neverresponded to a grievance.H owever,Tilley hadno constimtionalentitlem enttothe grievanceprocessand cnnnot bringaj 1983claim allegingthedenialoftheavailabilityofthegrievanceprocess. SeeBoéker y.S.C.Den'tofCom ,855F.3d533,541(4thCir.2017);Adnmsv.Rice,40F.3d 72,75(4th Cir. 1994)(holdingSltheConstimtion createsno entitlementto grievanceprocedlzresoraccesstoany suchprocedurevoluntarilyestablishedby astate'').Therefore,Iwillgrantthemotiontodismiss asto Sm ith.l C . Tilley's R esponse In Tilley's response to the m otion to dism iss,ECF No.18,he attem pted to file three m otions.First,hemovedto strikeDefendants'm otiontodismiss.However,Iwilldenythemotion beeause he did notasset'tmly valid grounds. Second,Tilley m oved forleaveto file an amended complaintwithoutfiling aproposed nm ended com plaint.Litigants,even thoseproceeding pro K , m ust submit a proposed nmended complaint to avoid autom atic dezzial of their motion. M arcantonio v.Dudzinski,155 F.Supp.3d 619,637 (W .D.Va.2015) (CGThe Courtwillnot speculatewhetherahypotheticalnmended complaintwould be futile,orwhetherthe good cause standardismet.'').Therefore,Iwilldenythemotion.Third,Tilleyappearstorequestatlattorney. A s the action w illbe dism issed forfailure to state a claim ,the m otion ism oot. 1To any extentTilley arguesthatSm ith failed to properly supervisehis subordinates,the claim m ustfail becauserespondeatsuperiorisnotactionableviaj 1983.See.e.g.,lqbal,556U.S.at676. 4 15,. Forthe foregoing reasons,IwillgrantDefendants'motion to dism iss and deny Tilley's pendingm otions. The Clerk isdirected to send a copy ofthism em orandum opinion and theaccompanying orderto the parties. ENTEREDthiso lS1 jayofFebnlary,2019. x (/ J c' t)tdsr'-,. % EN I R U N ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE 5
]]>
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.
