Walker et al v. Basker et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 8/7/2017. (sbea, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JERMAINE KEITH WALKER, Plaintiff, v. FAITH ELIZABETH BASKER, et al., Defendants. CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURl RICHMOND VA ) ) ) ) ) AUG - 8 2017 Civil Action No. 3:17CV19-HEH ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) Plaintiff, a former Virginia inmate proceedingpro se, 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). Plaintiffs current allegations fail 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 May 10, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen ( 14) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court provided Plaintiff with specific instructions as to the fonn and content of the particularized complaint. The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the particularized complaint in accordance with the Court's directions would result in the dismissal of the action. Additionally, Plaintiff had not paid the filing fee or obtained leave to proceed in for ma pauperis. By Memorandum Order entered on May 10, 2017, the Court sent Plaintiff an appropriate in for ma pauperis affidavit. The Court directed Plaintiff to complete and return the in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the full filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. On June 20, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of eleven ( 11) days from the date of entry thereof to comply with the terms of the May 10, 2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff has not complied with the June 20, 2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff did not complete and return the in for ma pauperis affidavit sent to him by the Court. Additionally, Plaintiff did not submit a particularized complaint in conformance with the Court's directions. Instead, Plaintiff submitted an incomprehensible document and a request for an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. ~ Isl HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE A Date: '1.,S. 1 2O11 Richmond, Virginia 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?