Rajah v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al, No. 7:2018cv00640 - Document 9 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 1/15/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cLenx'soFf zhcEg.s.ols' r.couR AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R T H E W ESTERN D ISTR ICT O F W R G INIA R O AN OK E DIV ISIO N JA8 15 2215 BY J: UL? .DUy ,C ERK , ER IC V A LENT IN O R AJA H , ERK CA SE N O .7:18C V00640 Plaintiff, M EM OM NDUM OPINION COM M ON W EALTH OF W RGINIA, W K , %By:Hon. G len E.C onrad Senior U nited States DistrictJudge D efendants. . Eric Valentino Rajah,aVirginiainmateproceeding pro K,filed thiscivilrightsaction tmder42 U.S' .C.j1983,allegingthathehasbeen deprivedofadequatementalhealth treatment in prison. He has also fled an amendm entto his complaintand a requestfor production of documents. Afterreview ofRajah'ssubmissions,the courtconcludesthatthe action mustbe summ arily dism issed forfailtlreto statea claim . Rajah is confned atRiverNorth CoaectionalCenter(GGRNCC''). In hiscomplaintas nmended,RajahclaimsthatonM arch21,2018,hewasphysicallyabused byRNCC offcersand suffered an injtu'y to hislefthand thatcaused nerve damage. SeeAm.Compl.1,ECF No.6. Rajahallegesthatin Jtmeof2018,aftermanymonthsofstrugglingwithhismentalhealthissues, he asked prison oo cials form entalhealth treatment. He complainsthathe Glwasgiven a m ood log book and basically on (hisqown untilhisTelephysc Esic)meeting.'' Compl.2,ECF No.1. Rajah v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al Doc. 9 He allegesthatGGQMHP'S (Qualified M entalHealth ProfessionalsjatRNCC wasn'tfollowing properprocedureconcerningmentalhealthinmates.''Ld= Rajahfurtherallegesthatfrom Jtmeto October2018,heGtpleaded and begged forproperm entalhealth care and services.'' Am .Compl. at1. Thereafter,Rajah Slstarted m iting everythingup and seekingoutsidehelp. Dr.Sturdivant Dockets.Justia.com on 8-24-18threatened (Rajahqand said (Rajah wasqdelaying and hindering llim from properly doinghisjob.'' Compl.at2. Although Rajah allegedly spoketo W arden Barry Kanode about Glthe inadequate treatm ent''the RNCC m entalhealth staffwasûGdoing,''Kanode Gcneverfixed the situation.''J#=.Rajah assertsthathehasbeen çGblatantly neglectedand leftwith no onetohelp withhisnnxiety,depression,andinsomrnliaissuesthathebattleswith daily.''Am.Comp.at1. Asdefendantstohisj1983 claims,Rajah nnmestheCommonwea1thofVirginia,RNCC, W arden Kanode,and Dr.Sturdivant. He seeks 14.7 m illion dollarsin m onetary dam agesforhis stlffering Gtphyscologicallylsic),emotionally,mentally,andphysically.''Id.Hecontendsthat copies ofhis inform alrequestforms,infbrmalcomplaintform s,regular grievances,em ergency grievances, and m edical records for the last 36 m onths will lishow a pattern and history of neglectfrom them entalhealth departm ent''atRNCC.M ot.1,ECF NO .8. II. To state a cause ofaction under j1983,a plaintiff mustestablish thathe..has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constimtion or laws of the Uzlited States and that this deprivation resulted from conductcommitted by a person acting undercolorofstatelaw. W est v.Atkins,487U.S.42 (1988).Thecourtshallsummarilydismissany actionfiledby aprisoner aboutprison conditionsifihecourtdeterminestheactionorclaim isfrivolous,malicious,orfails tostateaclaim onwlzichreliefmaybegranted.42U.S.C.j1997e(c)(1).A tGfrivolous''claim is onetiatGllacksan arguable basiseitherin 1aw orin fact''Neitzkev.W illinms,490 U.S.319, 325(1989)(intemretingçtfrivolous''informerversion of28U.S.C.j 1915(d)). Itiswellsettled thata state carmotbe sued underj 1983. W illv.M ichigan Dep'tof State Police,491U.S.58,71(1989)('EgNqdithera State noritsoficialsacting in theirofficial capacitiesareGpersons'underj 1983.'5).ThisrulealsoappliestoGûgovernmentalentitiesthatare l i 1 1 I : $.the state' considered arms o ' l forEleventh Amendmentpurposes.'' J-tl,at70. Correctional Fenters,asentitiesoperated by the Commonwealth,are notGçpersons''thatcan be sued under ! . j 1983. Therefore,Rajah'sclaimsagainsttheCommonwealth and RNCC cnnnotproceed,and mustbesummarily dismissed,ptlrsuantto j 1915A(b)(1),asfrivolous. TheindividualdefendantsRajah hasnnmed,W arden KanodeandDr.Sturdivant,may be subjecttobeing suedunderj 1983intheirindividualcapaci ies. Rajah'sallegations,however, lt donotstateany actionable j1983 claim againsteitherofthesedefendants. Atthemost,Rajah allegesthatthe doctorverbally Githreatened''him in an unspecified way.Such verbalcom m ents alonedid notviolateRajah'sconstimtionalrights. SeeHensleev.Lewis,153Fed.App'x 179, 179(4th Cir.2005)(citingCollinsv.Ctmdy,603F.2d 825,827(10th Cir.1979:. Rajah also assertsthatthewarden isautomatically responsible and liable underj 1983 fortheallegedlyinadequatecaretmspecified RNCC mentalhealthstaffhaveprovidedto Rajah. Rajahismistaken. Underj1983,Gtliabilitywillonly1iewhereitisaftirmatively shownthatthe officialcharged acted personally in the deprivation ofthe plaintiffs'rights.'' Vinnedge v.Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926,928 (4th Cir.1977)(citation,alteration,and internalquotation marksomitted). M oreover,thewarden maylawfullyrely on theprofessionaljudgmentofthementalhealth staff atRNCC to determine the appropriate diagnosesand course oftreatmentforRajah's mental health conditions. SeeM iltierv.Beorn,896 F.2d 848,854 (4th Cir.1990)(ovem zled p. q other cromtdskyFarmerv.Brerman,511U.S.825,838(1994:. Forthereasonsstated,Rajah'sallegationsdonotprovideafacmalorlegalbasisforany constimtionalclaim actionable againstthe defendants he has nnmed. Accordingly,the court dismissesRajah'sclvilactlon withoutprejudce,purslmntto j1997e(c)(1),asNvolous.t An ' i) i 'appropriate order willbe entered herewith. Dismissalwithoutprejudice leaves RajO the ,' . ., ! . . . opportnnlty to refile his clmmq in a new and sepapte civilactiow provided tbat the new complaintstatesfactsconcemlng the actionsofeach defendnntin violatlon ofhisconstimtional rights. n e Clerk ls O ected to send copies oftbis memorandum opinlon and accompanying orderto plaintlë EN-IER:'I' ikis ?.5 day ofJanuary,2019. SenlorUnited StatesDisz d Judge 1 In any eveat, thecourtcannotsndthatRajah'sall egadonsstateany j1983 dnl 'm agm'nqtanyoneat RNCC relatedtohksmentalhealthneeds.To provethatdenlnlofmedicalcarein prison violatedhisconstitudonai. rights,anl 'nmntemustshow 'hntthedefm dantsadedwithsdleh-berateintlilerencetolhislseriousmedcalneeds.'' Jackson v.Lightsey.775 F.3d 170,178 (4th Cir.2014$ çm locialseviacedeh-berate indiWerenceby ading Ktendonnllyto delay ordenytheprisoneraccesstoadequatemedicalcareorbyiR oringan lnmate'slmownsedous medicalne q.''Shapev.S.C.Dep'tofCom.621F.Aqp'x732,733(4tbCir.2015)(tmpubo ed).Deliberate indiffçrœce requiresproof of intentbeyond mere neghgence,errors in Judgmentsinadvertentoversights,or . dkqam en?betwem dodoraqd?atientabputtheprisoner'streau entplan.SeeEstellev.Gamble.429U.S.9h 105-06 (1970 CM edicalmnlpractcedoesnotbœomeaconstitM onalWoladon memly becausethevif#im isa prisonef').''Qtlesfonsofmedcalludm entarenotsubled toJudcialreviem''Russellv.Shefer.528F.2d318, i319 (4th Cir.1975). Rajah'sallegadonssuggestsatmost Ms dimw eemotw1t11tbe courseofmeatalhealth t (monitoringandtreatr= thehasv ewe ' datRNCC,suchasthefl 'mmg ' ofhistelc edpsychiatricappoh% enttlle Lhelpflvlness ofkeeping a mood 1og books and lms w cced medicaljud> ents made by the doctor. Suck )disagreementq betweo the mentnl health ste and the l 'nmate do not support a j1983 cln' lm qf delibc te indifferencetoaseriousmedicalneed fordife œ ttrea% entthnnwhatwasprovide .M oreovœ,allegedviolaions !ofprisonpoliciesbytheQMlvsorotlv sdonotpresentvotmdsforconsttuionalclnlmqadionabletmderj1983. SR Ricmo . v.ChtyofFn: @rrnv.907 F2d 1459,1469(4thCir.1990)(holding stateys'failureto abideby itsowh proœdnmlregulaGonsisnotactionablelmderj1983). 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.
