Rosas v. Robinson et al
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, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CLERK. U.S. D1STR1CT COURT
Civil Action No. 3:16CV165
DAVID ROBINSON, et al,
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
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.
APR 1 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?