Bradley v. Snidow et al, No. 7:2019cv00359 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 05/31/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U. S.DISX Cœ R' r AT ROANOKE,VA FILFD MAï 3 12219 IN TllE U NITED STA TES DISTRJCT COU RT JU FOR TIIE W MSTERN DISTM CT OFVIRGN A BY: C UDLEX CL RK ROAN OKE DIVISION TERRY C.BR AD LEY , CivilAction No.7:19CV00359 Plaintil M EM ORANDUM OPIM ON By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge L.L.SN ID OW ,etal., Defendants. Terry C.Bradley,proceeding pro K ,comm enced this action by Gling a form complaint . againsttheVirgirliaTech PoliceDepartm entandtwoindividualdefendants. 'l'heplaintiffhasnot paidthefling feebutwillbegrànted leaveto proceedLqformapaupedsforpurposesofiitial review ofhercomplaint. Forthe following reasons,the courtconcludesthatthe case mustbe dismissedforfailtlretostateaclaim,ptlrsuantto28U.S.C.b1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Backzround The following facm alallegationsare taken 9om the complaintand the attached exhibits. SeeGoinesv.Valley Cmty.Servs.Bd.,822 F.3d 159,166(4th Cir.2016)(noting. thatthecourt o ' may considerexhlbitstoacomplaintinassessingitssux ciency). ln 2001, Bradley worked in the bookstore at Virgirlia Polytechnic Instimte and State University (ççvirginiaTech''). 0n October22,2001,thedirectorofthebookstorecontactedthe Bradley v. Snidow et al Doc. 3 VirginiaTech PoliceDepartm entandreportedthatBradleyhadadm itted to takingm oney9om the store by crediting m erchandise retgrns to herpersonalchedk card. Based on the inform ation 'p provided,SergeantL.L.Srlidow and OfficerF.M .M iano Elallegedly obtained a valid warrantto nrrestthe plaintifll'' Com pl.4,Dkt.No.2. How ever,the plaintiffclaim sthatRno valid nrrest Dockets.Justia.com warrantwasobtained,''and thatwhatwasidentified as an arrestwan' antwasactually aVirginia Uniform Sllmmons. J#=;seealsoCompl.Ex.1,Dkt.No.2-1. On January 23, 2002, a grand jury returned an indic% ent charging Bradley with embezzlement. M ontgom ery ColmtyCircuitCourtrecordsindicatethatBradley enteredapleaof guiltyonM arch 8,2002,and thatthepresidingjudgeimposedatk ee-yearsuspendedsentence, threeyearsofsupervisedprobation,and a fine and feestotaling $855.00. Bradley signed aform acknowledging herconditionsofprobation on M arch 18,2002. Approximatelyfifteenyearslater,Bradleyappliedforajobwithapublicschoolsystem in North Carolina. A bactgrolmd check revealedthatBradley had apriorfelonyconvictionfor embezzlem ent. Asaresultofthe conviction,theschoolsystem declined to hireBradley. Bradley subsequently filed apetition requesting exptmgem entoftherecordsrelated tothe embezzlement charge. The petition was denied by the Circuit Court on April 5,2018. A subsequentpetition forappealwasderlied bythe Suprem eCourtofVirginiaon February4,2019. OnM ay 9,2019,Bradleyfiledtheinstantaction under42U.S.C.j1983againstSrlidow, M iano,and theVirg 'inia Tech PoliceDepartment.* Bradley claim sthatthe defendantsviolated hir constitutionalrightsto equalprotection and dueprocessby arresting herçsbased on falsifed docllmentation''and ççrepresenting such asa valid wr ant'' Compl.at4. Sheseeksto recover monetarydamagesintheamotmtof$123,000,000. J#.at5. Standard ofR eview Under28U.S.C.j1915(e),whichgovernsLq formapauperisproceedings,thecourthasa mandatorydu 'ty to screen irlitialflings. ErilineCo.S.A.v.Johnson,440F.3d648,656-57(4th Cir.2006). Thécourtmustdismissacasedsatanytime''ifthecourtdeterminesthatthecomplaint çifailsto state a claim on which reliefmay be granted.'' 28 U.S.C.j 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The #Thisisthethird action Bradley hasfiled regarding the same facm alallegations. standardsforreviewingacomplaintfordismissaltmderj 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)arethesnmeasthose which apply when a defendant m oves for dismissal tm der Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). De'Lonta v.Ancelone,330 F.3d 630,633 (4th Cir.2003). Thus,in reviewing a complainttmderthisstatute,thecourtmustacceptallwell-pleaded factualallegationsastrueand view the complaintin the lightm ostfavorable to the plaintiffs. Philips,572 F.3d at 180. To survivedism issalforfailuretostateaclaim ,acom plaintmustcontainsuftk ientfactualallegations . Sito raisearighttoreliefabovethespeculativelevel''and Sçto stateaclaim toreliefthatisplausible onitsface.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555,570(2007);seealsoJonesv.Bock, 549U.S.199,215(2007)(çGA complaintissubjectto dismissalforfailureto stateaclaim ifthe allegations,talcen as tnze,show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. If the allegations,for exnmple,show thatreliefisbarredbytheapplicablestamteoflimitations,thecomplaintissubject to(j, . ISIAII .SSaj....,,). D iscussion Asindicated above,Bradley filed a form complaintdesignated forpro K plaintiffswho . Wishtopm sueaclaim tmder42U.S.C.j 1983. Section 1983providesacauseofactionagainst any person who,undercolorofstate law,causesthedeprivation ofanotherperson'srightsunder theConstimtion orlawsoftheUnitedStates. 42U.S.C.j 1983. Forthefollowingreasons,the courtconcludesthattheplaintiffscomplaintfailstostateaplausibleclaim tmderj 1983against any ofthennm ed defendants. 1. C laim saeainsttheV ireinia T ech Police D epartm ent To state a claiin under j 1983,a plaintiffmustnnme a defendantwho qualifies as a çsperson''w' itlzin the m eaning ofthe statm e. Itis well-settled thatç1a state isnota dpeison'for purposesofdetenniningwho can besued tmderj 1983.'' Va.OflkeforProt.& Advocacy v. Reinhard,405F.3d 1. 85,189(4th Cir.2005)(citingW illv.M ich.Dep'tofStatePolice,491U.S. 58,71(1989). Thesnmeistnzeforstateentities. Seeid.(apeeingthat$çastateagency...isnot a Sperson'within the meaning of the statute'). Consequently,Virginia Tech and its police deparM ent,asstateentities,tçclearly falll)outsidethescopeofaçperson'forj 1983purposes.'' Zhao v.Va.Polytechnic Inst.& StateUniv.,No.7:18-cv-00189,2018 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 177991, at *8 (W .D.Va.Oct. 16,2018). The plaintiffs claims againstthe Virginia Tech Police Departmentarethereforesubjecttodismissal. II. C laim sazainstSnidow and M iano Although state officerssued in theirindividualcapacitiesare Stpersons''subjectto suit underj1983,Haferv.M elo,502U.S.21,22(1991),thecourtconcludesthatthecomplaintfailsto stateaplausible dueprocessorequalprotection claim againstSnidow andM iano. AstheUnited StatesCourtofAppealsforthe Fötlrth Circuithasexplained,Ssthe Due ProcessClauseisnotthe properlensthrough which toevaluate1aw enforcem ent'spretl'ialmissteps.'' Safarv.Tirmle,859 F.3d 241,245 (4th Cir.2017). Sçcompared tothemoregeneralized notion ofdueprocess,the Folll'th Am endment provides an explicit texmal sotlrce of constimtional protection against unreasonabie seizllmesand arrests,and definesthe pxocessthatis due forseivm es ofpersonsor Property in criminalcases.'' J.I. L (intemalquotation marksand alterationsomitted). Thus,the aqsessmentofanallegedlytmconstttmionalarresiiscontrolledbytheFourthAmendment. J4 .-.. tsr l-he Fourth Am endm entprohibits law enforcem entofscers f' rom making tmreasonable seizlzres, and the seizure of an in'dividual effected without probable cause is llnreasonable.'' Brooksv.CitvofW inston-salem,85F.3d 178,183(4th Cir.1996)(citingGrahnm v.Colmor,490 U.S.386,396-97 (1989:. Thus,to statea claim forfalsearresttmderj 1983,aplaintiffmust dem onstratethatshe'Wasarrested withoutprobablecauseto believe thata crim ehadbeen orwas . being committed. Sohversv.City ofCharlotte,659 F.App'x 738,739 (4th Cir.2016)(citing Streetv.Stlrdykw 492.F.2d368,372-73(4thCir.1974)). In this case,the plaintiffdoes notassert,much lessplausibly demonstrate,thatshe was anzsted withoutprobablecause. Instead,Bradley claim sthatherarrestwasnotm adepursuantto a valid arrestwarrant. As indicated above,however,ççltqhe Fourth Amendment prohibits çunreasonablesearchesand seizures,notwarrantlessones.'' Gravesv.M ahoningCnty.,821F.3d 772,775(6thCir.2016)(internalcitationsomitted). Consequently,theplaintifftfmaynotprevail merelybyshowingthat(shewasjarrestedwithadefectivewarrant;gsheqmustshow that(shewasj unreas' onably seized.'' JZ (emphasisinoriginal). W ithoutfactsdemonstratingthattheplaintiff wasarrestedwithoutprobablecause,theplaintiffGicannotstateaFourthAmendmentj1983claim againstanyone.'' Id.at776; 'seealso Robinson v.CityofSouth Charleston,662 F.App'x 216,221 (4thCir.2016)(notingthatStprobablecauseissuffkienttojustifyapublicarrestundertheFourth Am endment,regardless ofthe validity of the arrestwarrants obtained by the ox cers or any delkienciesin the affidavitssupporting them'')(citing Graves,supra). Forthese reasons,the courtconcludesthatthecomplaintfailsto stateaplausibleclaim tmdertheFourth Amendm ent. The courtlikewise concludesthatthe com plaintfailsto state aplausible claim tmderthe Equ:lProtection Clauseofthe Fourtienth Am endment. Thecomplaintmerely referencesçGequal pfotection tmderthelaw''withoutproviding any furtherfactualenhancem ent. Such aconclusory assertion isinsuffk ientto state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted. See Vista-œ aphics. Inc.v.Va.Dep'tofTransp.,682 F.App'x 231,237 (4th Cir.2017)(holdingthattheplaintiY s ççsinglepassingreferencein theircomplainttotheEqualProtection Clause''wasinsufficienttmder . Iqbal). Additionally,itis clearfrom theplaintiffscomplaintthatherclaim sareuntim ely. The statute oflimitationsforconstitutionalclaimstmderj 1983isborrowedfrom the fonlm state's personalinjurystatute. SeeW ilsonv.Garcia,471U.S.261,276(1985). Virgiiahasatwo-year statute of limitations forpersqnalinjury actions. ' Va.Code j 8.01-243(A). Accordingly,a plaintiffseekingtobringacivilrightsactiontmderj1983inVirgirliamustdosowitllintwoyears afterthecause ofaction accrues. Thequestion ofwhen acause ofaction accruestmderj 1983 isan issue offederallaw. W allacev.Kato,549U.S.384,388(2007);Nasim v.W arden.Md.HouseofCom ,64F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc). Underfederallaw,accrualoccurs Eçwhen the plaintiffhas a complete and presentcause ofaction,thatis,when theplaintiff can 5le suitand obtain relief.'' W allace,549 U.S.at388 (internalquotation marksomitted). Applying theseprinciple,courts haveheldthatclaim srelatedtoan arrestaccnzeatthetimeofthearrest. SeeW allace,549U.S.at 388;seealsoRosev.Bartle,871F.2d 331,350 (3d Cir.1989)(observing thatç$a section 1983 claim forfalse arrestaccrues on thedate ofthe arrest,asdoesa section 1983 claim forabuse of process,becauseonthatdateaplaintiffwouldhavereasontoknow oftheinjurywhichthosetwo tortsencompass'');Fox v.Desoto,489F.3d227,233 (6thCir.2007)(concludingthatclaimsfor wrongfulm estand the use ofexcessive force in effectuating mlarrestaccrue atthe time ofthe arrest);Castaphenyv.W .Va.StatePolice,No.2:10-cv-00735,2011U.S.Dist.LEXiS 607,at*15 (S.D.W .Va.Jan.3,2011)(holdinjthattheplaintiY sclaimsforviolationsofdueprocessand equalprotection accnled uptoandthrough hisarreston June8,2006,and thatthetwo-yearstatute oflimitationsexpirednolaterthanJune8,2008). Thisistnzeççeventhoughthefullextentofthe injury isnitthen known orprediitable.'' W allace,549 U.S.at391 (intem alquotation marks omitted). ttW ereitothem ise,thestatutewouldbegintonm onlyafteraplaintiffbecnmesatisfed that(she)hadbeenhnrmedenough,placingthesupposedstatuteofreposeinthesolehandsofthe party seekingrelief-'' Id. In this case,the record reveals that Bradley was arrested in 2001,and that she was convicted and sentenced in 2002. Thus,any claimsrelated to herarrestaccrued wellmorethan two yearsbefore the ihstantaction wasfiled. BecauseBradley did notfile suituntil2019,her claim s are untim ely. Conclusion Forthereasonsstated,thecourtwillgranttheplaintiY smotion forleaveto proceedLq formapauperis. However,hercomplaintwillbedismissedptlrsuantto j 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk isdirected to send copies ofthismem orandllm opinion and theaccompanying orderto theplaintiff. DATED :This31stday ofM ay,2019. /s/Glen E.Conrad SeniorUited StatesDistdctJudge
]]>
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.
