Lemke v. O'Sullivan et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: 1 Complaint, 1 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, 2 Motion to Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 11/21/2012. Copy mailed to pltf pro se.(stas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

LE ft

Alexandria Division
\

Thomas Lemke,
Plaintiff,

l:12cv!301 (LMB/IDD)
Jim O'Sullivan, et aL,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Thomas Lemke, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that conditions at Chesapeake City Jail ("CCJ") prohibit
his access to the courts and that defendants have violated his right to be transferred to a Virginia

Department ofCorrections ("VDOC") facility along with an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and a Motion for Appointment ofCounsel. For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs
claim regarding his right totransfer institutions will bedismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(b)(l) for failure to state aclaim for which relief can be granted;1 plaintiffwill be directed
to particularize and amend his allegations concerning denial ofhis access to the courts and
Section 1915A provides:

(a) Screening.—The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any
event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which

a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for dismissal.—On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint—

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; or

(2)seeks monetary relieffrom a defendant who is immune from such relief.