Rosas v. Robinson et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 04/13/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division PETER ROSAS, t~~~'. CLERK. U.S. D1STR1CT COURT RICHMOND VA Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:16CV165 DAVID ROBINSON, et al, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In order to state a 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 States. See Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Courts must liberally construe pro se civil rights complaints in order to address constitutional deprivations. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Nevertheless, "[p]rinciples requiring generous construction of prose complaints are not ... without limits." Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff's current allegations failed to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. See Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on September 16, 2016, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 13.) Rather than submit a particularized complaint, Plaintiff sought a stay while he pursued an appeal in another case. (ECF No. 15.) By Memorandum Order entered February 1, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for a stay and directed Plaintiff to comply with the September 16, 2016 Memorandum Order within eleven (11) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 19.) More than eleven (11) days have elapsed since the entry of the February 1, 2017 Memorandum Order and Plaintiff has not responded. Accordingly, the action WILL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: APR 1 2 Richmond, Virginia 2017 2

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?