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, )

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