Dunston v. Ms. Bush et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 04/12/2018. Copy of Memorandum Opinion mail to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Civil Action No. 3:17CV524-HEH
MS. BUSH, et ai,
(Dismissing Action Without Prejudice)
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se 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 ActionAgainst Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998)
(citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 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 'people them' as a means to name a
defendant in a § 1983 claim does not adequately name a 'person'"); see Preval v. Reno,
No. 99-6950,2000 WL 20591, at *1 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) (affirming district
court's determination that Piedmont Regional Jail is not a "person" under § 1983). In his
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?