Amos v. Scott et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 03/27/2015. (ccol, )
IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MITCHELL AMOS,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No.
MRS. SCOTT, ^
3:14CV821
al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mitchell Amos,
forma pauperis,
reasons
failure
set
a
Virginia
filed this 42 U.S.C.
for
below,
to state a
the
Pursuant to the
Court must dismiss
a
the
claim
on
Court
se
§ 1983 action.^
will
dismiss
the
and in
For the
action
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Prison Litigation Reform Act
any action filed by a
action
(1)
"is
which
relief
frivolous"
may
be
("PLRA")
or
(2)
"fails
granted."
28
to
state
U.S.C.
Every person who,
under color of any statute
. . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
within
the
jurisdiction
thereof
to
the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law . . . .
42
U.S.C.
§
1983.
this
prisoner if the Court
^ The statute provides, in pertinent part:
person
for
claim.
I.
determines
inmate proceeding pro
§ 1915(e)(2);
includes
see
claims
28
U.S.C.
based
upon
§
1915A.
" 'an
The
first
indisputably
standard
meritless
legal
theory,'" or claims where the "'factual contentions are clearly
baseless.'"
1992)
The
Clay
v.
Yates,
(quoting Neitzke v.
second
standard
dismiss under Fed.
"A
motion
sufficiency
contests
is
R.
to
of
a
809
Williams,
the
Civ.
P.
Arthur R.
952
Miller,
Rule
427
319,
(E.D.
327
for
a
Va.
(1989)).
motion
12(b) (6)
importantly,
facts,
(4th Cir.
U.S.
standard
under
applicability of defenses."
980 F.2d 943,
490
417,
to
12(b)(6).
dismiss
the
Supp.
familiar
complaint;
surrounding
F.
it
the merits
does
of
a
tests
not
1992)
resolve
claim,
Republican Party of N.C.
the
or
the
v. Martin,
(citing 5A Charles A.
Wright &
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356
(1990)).
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
a plaintiff s well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the
complaint
is
plaintiff.
Cir.
see
only
also
to
a
identifying
pleadings
Ashcroft V.
motion
are
Iqbal,
not
the
light
most
Martin,
980
dismiss
that,
entitled
662,
favorable
(4th
952.
however,
can
because
the
at
allegations,
to
556 U.S.
F.2d
to
7 F.3d 1130, 1134
Inc. v. Matkari,
factual
considering
conclusions,
in
Mylan Labs.,
1993);
applies
viewed
choose
they
to
the
679
(2009).
are
This
principle
and
"a
to
begin
no
assumption
court
more
of
by
than
truth."
The
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
"require[
]
only
'a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is
entitled
to
relief,'
notice of what the
rests.'"
.
.
Bell Atl.
in
.
order
41,
47
Corp.
with
complaints
"formulaic
Id.
(1957)).
v.
Twombly,
containing
of
level,"
"to
id.
raise
only
the
(citations omitted).
sufficient
"labels
elements
right
(citation
550 U.S.
cannot
Instead,
a
the
defendant
544,
(quoting Conley v.
Plaintiffs
recitation
'give
fair
claim is and the grounds upon which it
(second alteration in original)
U.S.
to
555
Gibson,
satisfy this
and
of
(2007)
standard
conclusions"
a
cause
of
355
or
action."
a plaintiff must allege facts
to
relief
omitted),
above
stating
the
a
speculative
claim
that
"plausible on its face," rather than merely "conceivable."
at
570.
pleads
"A
claim
factual
reasonable
has
content
inference
550
U.S.
at
that
that
misconduct alleged."
Corp.,
facial
plausibility
allows
the
Iqbal,
the
when
court
defendant
is
the
556 U.S.
at
678
in
order
is
Id.
plaintiff
to
draw
liable
Therefore,
556).
a
the
for
the
(citing Bell Atl.
for
a
claim or
complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim,
the
plaintiff
the
must
"allege
elements of
[his or]
& Co. ,
F.3d
324
Microsoft
Corp.,
United States,
her claim."
761,
309
facts
765
F.3d
289 F.3d 270,
(4th
193,
281
sufficient
Bass v.
Cir.
213
E.I.
2003)
(4th
(4th Cir.
to
state
DuPont de Nemours
(citing
Cir.
all
2002);
2002)).
Dickson
v.
lodice
v.
Lastly,
while
complaints,
1978),
it
Gordon
does
the
v.
not
Court
Leeke,
act
as
liberally
574
the
F.2d
construes
1147,
inmate's
1151
advocate,
pro
(4th
sua
se
Cir.
sponte
developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed
to
clearly raise
Carroll,
107
concurring);
(4th Cir.
F.3d
4),
Amos
surgery!"
the
face
241,
243
Beaudett v.
of
his
(4th
Cir.
1997)
City of Hampton,
confined
"slipped
in
the
775
(Luttig,
J.,
F.2d 1274,
1278
and
(Id. at 5.)^
Rappahannock Regional
fell
and
hurt
into
[his]
knee
Jail,
and
(Compl.
to
have
Amos blames his fall on Manager Scott,
and Head of the Kitchen Hatcher ("Defendants")
because "they store old grease where
food
See Brock v.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS
Supervisor Tyler,
of
complaint.
1985).
II.
While
on
the
stockroom .
$2,000,000 in damages.
.
."
to move pallets
(Id.)
Amos
demands
(Id. at 6.)
Ill.
In order to state a
.
[Amos has]
ANALYSIS
viable
claim under
42
U.S.C.
§
1983,
a
plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state
law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right
conferred by a
law
of
the
United
^ The Court has
corrected
quotations from Amos' Complaint.
States.
the
See
Dowe v.
capitalization
in
Total
the
Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658
Cir.
1998)
(citing 42 U.S.C.
any
constitutional
Furthermore,
slippery
right
Defendants'
floor
§ 1983).
allegedly
alleged
fails
to
Amos fails to identify
abridged
implicate
Fahim,
Cir.
omitted)
("Federal
Defendants.
in
creating
a
the
either
Plyes v.
(citations
by
negligence
Fourteenth Amendment.^
2014)
(4th
Eighth
or
771 F.3d 403,
courts
410
(7th
consistently
have adopted the view that slippery surfaces and shower floors
in
prisons,
without
unconstitutional]
more,
cannot
constitute
condition of confinement.");
Cnty. Texas, No.
94-10553,
[an
Matthews v.
1994 WL 558999, at *1
Hunt
(5th Cir. 1994)
(concluding pretrial detainee's "assertion that the floor of the
shower
was
intent
wet
to
and
punish"
Accordingly,
slippery
for
Amos's
is
insufficient
purposes
claims
and
of
the
the
to
establish
Fourteenth
action
will
be
an
Amendment).
dismissed.
The Clerk will be directed to note the disposition of the action
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
^ It
is
pretrial
not
detainee
confinement
Fourteenth
claims
clear
from
the
or
a
for
pretrial
Amendment
convicted
rather
834
(4th Cir.
2001)
the
whether Amos
inmate.
detainees
than
applies to convicted prisoners.
829,
Complaint
are
Eighth
was
Conditions
a
of
governed by the
Amendment,
which
See Patten v. Nichols, 27 4 F. 3d
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
send
a
copy
of
the
Memorandum
Opinion to Amos.
/s/
Robert E.
Payne
M>L
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date:
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?