Etterson v. Riverside Regional Jail et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 11/20/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (walk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

VICTOR ETTERSON,
Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV334

RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL, et al,,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By
Memorandum Order entered on October 3, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a

particularized complaint. The Court explained as follows:

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). Neither "inanimate objects such as
buildings, facilities, and grounds" nor collective terms such as "staff or "agency"

are persons amenable to suit under § 1983. Lamb v. Library People Them, No.
3:13-8-CMC-BHH, 2013 WL 526887, at *2-3 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2013) (citations

omitted) (internal quotations omitted) (explaining the plaintiffs "use of the
collective term 'staff" or "'people them' as a means to name a defendant in a
§ 1983 claim does not adequately name a 'person'"); see Preval v. Reno, No. 996950, 2000 WL 20591, at *1 (4th Cir. 2000) (chations omitted) (affirming district

' That statute provides, in pertinent part:
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 person 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.

court's determination that Piedmont Regional Jail is not a "person" under § 1983).
In addition, 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
Atl Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED, within fourteen (14)
days of the date of entry hereof, to particularize his Complaint in conformance
with the following directions and in the order set forth below:
a.
At the very top of the particularized pleading.
Plaintiff is directed to place the following caption in all capital
letters "PARTICULARIZED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER 3:17CV334."

b.
The first paragraph of the particularized pleading
must contain a list of defendants. Thereafter, in the body of the
particularized complaint. Plaintiff must set forth legibly, in
separately numbered paragraphs, a short statement of the facts
giving rise to his claims for relief. Thereafter, in separately
captioned sections. Plaintiff must clearly identify each civil right
violated. Under each section, the Plaintiff must list each defendant
purportedly liable under that legal theory and explain why he
believes each defendant is liable to him. Such explanation should
reference the specific numbered factual paragraphs in the body of
the particularized complaint that support that assertion. Plaintiff
shall also include a prayer for relief
c.
The particularized pleading will supplant the prior
complaints. The particularized pleading must stand or fall of its
own accord. Plaintiff may not reference statements in the prior
complaints.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOREGOING DIRECTIONS WILL

RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

(ECF No. 9, at 1-2.) On October 20, 2017, the Court received a documented titled, "RETURN
RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM ORDER DATED OCT, 3, 2017."

(ECF No. 10.)

This

Response entirely fails to follow the directives of the Court in its October 3, 2017 Memorandum
Order. Plaintiff did not even attempt to follow one instruction of the Court. At most, Plaintiff

appears to state that Dr. Mothusi Muja is who he intends to sue. Although Plaintiffs pro se
status makes him "entitled to some deference," it does not relieve him of his duty to abide by the

rules and orders of this Court Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989) (citation

omitted). Plaintiff has refused to comply with the Court's directives in this action.
Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

/S/

Richmond, Virginia

John A. Gibney, Jr.
United States District Jiid