Trotman v. C.S.H. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 02/02/2018. Copy mailed to plaintiff(tjoh, )

p

[E
-=3

c;

•

FEB - 2 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

CLERK, U S DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND. VA

Richmond Division
DAVID MICHAEL TROTMAN,

JR.,

Plaintiff,

V.

Civil Action No.

C.S.H., ^

3:17CV716

al.,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

David Michael Trotman, Jr., a former Virginia inmate,^ has
submitted this ambiguous civil action.

The matter is before the

Court

U.S.C.

for

evaluation

pursuant

to

28

§ 1915(e) (2)

and

Trotman's compliance with the Court's November 27 and December
8,

2017 Memorandum Orders.

entered November 27,

2017,

Specifically,

the Court directed Trotman to submit

a particularized complaint.
Trotman's

submissions

by Memorandum Order

(ECF No. 5.)

failed

to

provide

The Court noted that
each

named

defendant

"with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or

her liability rests."
Court

also

appropriate

warned

(Id.

Trotman

particularized

at 1-2
that

(citation omitted).)

if

complaint

he

that

failed

to

comported

submit

The
an

with

the

joinder requirements as set forth in the Memorandum Order,

the

^ It does not appear that Trotman was incarcerated at the
time he filed this action.

(ECF No.

8.)

Court

would drop

all

defendants

first named defendant.

(Id.

not

properly

joined with

at 3-4.)

By Memorandum Order entered on December 8,
directed Trotman,
thereof,

he

the

within fourteen

(14)

2017,

the Court

days of the date of entry

to inform the Court of whether he was incarcerated when

first

submitted

his

Motion

for

Leave

to

Proceed ^

Forma

Pauperis

to the Eastern District of Virginia in October 2017.

(ECF No.

6,

respond

would

prejudice.
On

at 2.)

The Court warned Trotman that a

result

in

8,

December

United

2017

11,

2017,

States

(ECF No.

Postal

Memorandum

the

Service

Order

2017,

address,
2017

copy of

action

without

Court

7.)

received

with

(ECF No.

Trotman's

On December 18,
the

what
9,

Court's

appears

at 1. )

2017,

December

to

read,

On December

the Court received from Trotman a notice of change of
and the Clerk mailed a

Memorandum

fourteen

the

returned

marked

"DISCHARGED RETURN TO SENDER."

21,

of

(Id.)

Particularized Complaint.
the

dismissal

failure to

(14)

Order

to

second copy of the December 8,

Trotman.

(ECF

No.

10.)

More

than

days have elapsed since the Clerk mailed a second

the December 8,

2017 Memorandum Order to Trotman and

Trotman has not responded.
directives of the Court,
can be dismissed.

Trotman failed to comply with the

and for this reason alone,

this action

Nevertheless,

because

Trotman

filed

a

Particularized

Complaint and because the Court received the information about
the

dates

of

Trotman's

confinement

from

the

Office

of

the

Sheriff of the County of Suffolk, New York (see ECF No. 8) , the
Court will

turn to a

preliminary review of

the

Particularized

Complaint.

As explained below, the Particularized Complaint is

untimely and legally frivolous.^
I.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act

("PLRA")

this

Court must dismiss any action if the Court determines the action
(1)

"is

frivolous"

or

relief may be granted."

(2)

"fails

to

28 U.S.C.

state

a

claim

which

The

§ 1915(e)(2).

on

first

standard includes claims based upon "'an indisputably meritless

legal theory,'"

or claims where the "'factual contentions are

clearly baseless.'"

Clay v. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417, 427

Va.

Neitzke

1992)

(1989)).

(quoting
The

v.

second standard is

motion to dismiss under Fed. R.
"A

motion

sufficiency of
contests

Williams,

to

a

dismiss

complaint;

surrounding the

the

Civ.
under

familiar

U.S.

319,

327

standard for

a

P. 12(b)(6).
Rule

importantly,

facts,

490

(E.D.

12(b)(6)

it

does

the merits of a

tests

not

claim,

the

resolve
or the

^ The Court notes that Trotman's Particularized Complaint
fails to comport with joinder requirements.
Nevertheless,
because Trotman's claims are either untimely or frivolous, the
Court addresses a l l of the claims.

applicability of defenses."
980 F.2d 943,

952

Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin,

(4th Cir. 1992)

Arthur R. Miller,

(citing 5A Charles A. Wright &

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356

(1990)).

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the
complaint

is

plaintiff.
Cir.

in

see also Martin,

only

to

factual

considering

a

identifying

pleadings

conclusions,

motion

are

Ashcroft V.
The

the

light

most

favorable

to

the

Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th

1993);

applies

viewed

dismiss

that,

because

entitled

to
679

Rules

of

Civil

952.

This principle

however,

can

556 U.S. 662,

Iqbal,

Federal

F.2d at

allegations,

to

not

980

choose

they

the

and

"a

to

are

no

assumption

court

begin
more
of

by
than

truth."

(2009).

Procedure

"require[]

only

'a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is

entitled

to

relief,'

notice of what the
rests.'"

.

Bell Atl.

.

in order

41,

47

Corp.

(1957)).

with complaints
"formulaic

v.

Twombly,

Id.

Plaintiffs

of

(citations omitted).

sufficient

"to

raise

the

defendant

a

the

cannot

"labels

elements

Instead,

right

550 U.S.

544,

(quoting Conley v.

containing only

recitation

'give

fair

. claim is and the grounds upon which it

(second alteration in original)
U.S.

to

to

satisfy

and

of

a

555

Gibson,

this

of

355

standard

conclusions"
cause

(2007)

or a

action."

a plaintiff must allege facts

relief

above

the

speculative

level,"

id.

"plausible

(citation

on

its

"conceivable."

Id.

omitted),

face,"

id.

stating

at

"A claim has

570,

facial

a

claim

rather

that

than

is

merely

plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows

the court to draw

the

that

is

reasonable

inference

misconduct alleged."
Corp.,
survive

550 U.S.

at 556) .

dismissal

plaintiff

must

for

[his or]

& Co. ,

F.3d

Microsoft Corp.,
United

States,

289

to

facts

765

309

270,

state

a

for

the

(citing Bell Atl.

claim,

sufficient
Bass v.

(4th

F.3d 193,
F.3d

at 678

liable

In order for a claim or complaint to

her claim."

761,

defendant

556 U.S.

failure

"allege

elements of

324

Iqbal,

the

Cir.
213
281

to

E.I.

2003)

state

all

the

the

DuPont de Nemours

(citing

(4th Cir.
(4th

therefore,

2002);

Cir. 2002)).

Dickson v.
lodice v.
Lastly,

while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v.
Leeke,
the

574 F.2d 1147,

inmate's

1151

advocate

and

(4th Cir.
develop,

1978),
sua

it will not act as

sponte,

statutory

and

constitutional claims that the inmate failed to clearly raise on

the face of his complaint.
243

(4th Cir.

1997)

(Luttig,

See Brock v. Carroll,
J.,

concurring);

of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

107 F.3d 241,

Beaudett v.

City

II.

Trotman's

individuals
reads

more

complaint
pages,

as

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Particularized

defendants.

like

a

Trotman's

timeline

that

raises

Trotman

lists

names

twenty-one

Particularized

Complaint

of

alleged

wrongdoings

for

claims
five

Complaint

relief.

On the

Virginia

state

than

first

statutes

that

a

two
he

"request[s]

this Court grant motion for civil action."

Compl. 1.)

Trotman fails to identify what cause of action those

statutes

provide

Instead,

on

the

him

or

following

how

those

pages,

statutes

he

places

were

the

(Part.

violated.

corresponding

numbers assigned to the five Virginia statutes next to each set
of allegations.

Only one of the Virginia Code sections that he

lists is a civil statute:

Virginia Code section 57-1,

the "Act

for religious freedom recited."^
The

Court

identifies

the

following

claims

from

his

Particularized Complaint:^
Claim One:

^ Trotman
18.2-415,

In
May
of
2013,
Defendant Albright

lists

18.2-417,

Virginia

Code

and 18.2-172.

Trotman
that
the

sections
These

informed
use
of

57-1,

sections

18.2-54.1,

are

the

"Act

for religious freedom recited," see Va. Code Ann. § 57-1, and
four
criminal
statutes
including,
"Attempts
to
poison,"
"Disorderly conduct in public places," "Slander and libel," and
"Forging, uttering, etc., other writings," respectively.

^

The

Court

employs

the

pagination

assigned

to

the

Particularized Complaint by the CM/ECF docketing system.
The
Court corrects the capitalization and punctuation in quotations
from the Particularized Complaint.

synthetic substances such as
was
against
his
spiritual

thorazine
beliefs.

(Part. Compl. 3.)
Claim Two:

In September of 2013,
Beach

administered

Trotman,

forced him to

"called a [n]
[Trotman]
Claim Three:

Defendant Lofton-

dementia medicine

take pills,

emergency squad to

with needles."

In
September
of
2013,
Defendant
Wilkerson
reported
that
Trotman
attempted
to
attack
her
when
"her

(Id.)

In
February
of
2014,
when
entered Central State Hospital
a

third time,

he

that he was a

"practicing member of the

In February of
to

2014,

Defendant

synthetic
(used

to

substances
treat

(Id.)

Trotman expressed

Yaratha

"that

use

such as

dementia

psych.
diagnosis)
spiritual beliefs .
my health."
(Id.)
Claim Six:

Trotman
("CSH")

informed Defendant Lee

Nations of God and Earth."
Claim Five:

inject

(Id.)

safety was not at risk."
Claim Four:

to

and

of

thorazine
or

severe

were
against
my
. . and harmful to

From February of 2014 until November of
2014, Defendant Ernst,
Bailey,
Gaskill,
"administered

accordance

toxic

to

disorder

McDowell, Lyte,
Lofton-Beach

chemicals

anti-social
a [n]

not

in

personality

axis

disorder/diagnosis" violating
"religious civil freedoms."

two

Trotman's
(Id. at

4.)
Claim Seven:

In March of
2014,
"refused to release

Defendant McGakean
[Trotman] from four

point
restraints
after
[Trotman]
already contracted for safety."
(Id.)
Claim Eight;

In

February

Defendant

through

Miles

"told

July
several

of

2014,

lies

and

conspired to keep me in harm's way" and

"was

very

rude

and

unprofessional."

2014,

Defendant Graves

(Id.)

On March 8 or 9,

Claim Nine:

"talked
[Trotman],"
out room,"

aggressively
towards
relocated him to a
"time
and after Trotman spit on
Graves, Defendant Graves hit
and knocked him over causing

Defendant

[Trotman]
a

mild concussion.

On

Claim Ten:

February 24,

falsely

2014,

accused

him during a

Defendant Harper

Trotman

of

attacking

fight between Trotman and

another inmate.

Claim Eleven:

(Id.)

(Id.)

From February of 2015 until October of
2015,

Defendant

Jones

"wrote

bogus

reports on [Trotman]" and "seemed . . .
amused by harassing [Trotman] . , . ."
(Id.

Claim Twelve:

at 5.)

From February of 2015 until October of
2015,

Defendant

Forbes

"made

reports

and

retracted

statements

about

[Trotman's]

and progression to being
Central State."

As relief,

Trotman "request[s]

civil action .
Trotman

Trotman

"Parham;"
Trotman,

body

of

.

.

also

labels

Dr.

(Id.

names

as

behavior

released from

(Id.)

that this Court grant motion for

at 1.)

as

the

Grogan;

however,

his

."

false

certain

defendants:

"first

and

Tracy

named

Dr.

Jack

Barber,

defendant;"

Henderson.

(Id.

who

"Fisher,-"

at

2.)

does not even mention these defendants in the

Particularized

Complaint.

"Where

a

complaint

alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of the defendant

and the complaint is silent as to the defendant except for his

8

name

appearing

dismissed,

in

306,

claim

the

complaint

is

properly-

Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir.

(citing U.S.
312

caption,

even under the liberal construction to be given pro

se complaints."
1974)

the

(E.D.

Brzozowski v.

Pa. 1968)).

against

Henderson.

ex rel.

Defendants

Thus,

the

281 F.

Supp.

Trotman has failed to state a

Barber,

Accordingly,

Randall,

Fisher,

claims

Parham,

against

Grogan,

these

and

Defendants

will be dismissed without prejudice.

Ill.

DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

Trotman's claims are all brought under Virginia state law,

thus

the

these

claims.

amount
state

Court

may

only

exercise

diversity

jurisdiction

for

Diversity jurisdiction is proper only when the

in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and the diversity of
citizenship

§ 1332;^ see Wis.

among

the

parties

Dep't of Corr.

v.

is

complete.

Schacht,

28

524 U.S.

U.S.C.

381,

The statute provides in relevant part:

(a)

The

district

courts

shall

have

original

jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-(1)
citizens of different States;

(2)

citizens

subjects
district

of

a

of

a

State

foreign

courts

state,

shall

not

and

citizens

except
have

that

or

the

original

jurisdiction under this subsection of an action
between

citizens

of

a

State

and

citizens

or

subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully
admitted for permanent residence in the United
States and are domiciled in the same State;

388

(1998); Athena Auto.,
Cir.

1999)

residents

Inc. v. DiGregorio, 166 F.3d 288,

(citations

of

omitted).

Virginia.

Defendants

Although

Trotman

was

are

290

(4th

presumably

incarcerated

at

Central State Hospital at the time the conduct underlying his
claims arose,

it appears that Trotman is a resident of New York.

A rebuttable presumption exists that a prisoner does not acquire
a

new

the

domicile

domicile

Hadican,

in

he

552

the

had

F.2d

state

prior

249,

assumes that Trotman is a

of

his

incarceration,

to

his

incarceration.

250-51

(8th

Cir.

but

1977).

retains

Jones
The

v.

Court

resident of New York for the purposes

of this action.

Moreover,

for

monetary

although Trotman failed

relief

in

his

identify any request

Particularized

requested seventy-five million dollars
Thus,

to

Complaint,

in his

initial

Trotman

filing.

the Court assumes that it has diversity jurisdiction over

this action.

IV.

ANALYSIS

OF REMAINING CLAIMS

Trotman bring his action pursuant to Virginia Code sections

(3)

citizens of different States and in which

citizens or subjects of a foreign state are
additional parties; and
(4)
a
foreign
state,
defined
in
section
1603(a)
of
this
title,
as
plaintiff
and
citizens of a
28

U.S.C.

§

State or of different States.

1332.

10

57-1,

18.2-54.1,

18.2-415,

18.2-417,

and

18.2-172.

These

sections are:

the "Act for religious freedom recited,"

Code

57-1,

Ann.

"Attempts

§

to

"Slander

poison,"

and

writings,"

and

four

criminal

"Disorderly

libel,"

and

respectively.

statutes

conduct

"Forging,

in

In Claims Seven,

including,

public

uttering,

see Va.

places,"

etc.,

Eleven,

other

and Twelve,

Trotman alleges that the conduct contained therein only violates
three
417,

sections
and

alleged

of

the

18.2-172.

All

violations

combination.

a

code,

18.2-415,

of

Trotman's

other

Virginia

criminal

preliminary

to bring a

named Defendants,

criminal

the

of

As

Trotman desires

Virginia

matter,

claims

to

also

code

or

Richard D. ,

410

extent

the

some
that

criminal action against any of

he may not

do

F.2d 486,

494

nonprosecution
U.S.

614,

(4th Cir.

argue

in

so.

Trotman,

as

of

619

another."

(1973);

1990)

Lopez

[criminal]

Linda
v.

R.S.

Robinson,

(citation omitted)

the

"a private

citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the

prosecution

18.2-

v.
914

("No citizen

has an enforceable right to institute a criminal prosecution.")

Thus,

any

sections

18.2-54.1,

frivolous.

dismissed

attempt

to

bring

18.2-415,

Accordingly,

with

prejudice

a

based

18.2-417,

Claims

in

claim

Three,

their

or

on

Virginia

18.2-172

Eleven,

entirety.

and

The

is

Code

legally

Twelve

are

remaining

claims are dismissed with prejudice to the extent they allege a

violation of a Virginia criminal statute.
11

In Claims One,

of

conduct

2014.

that

Two,

and Four through Ten,

occurred

from

May

of

2013

Trotman complains

until

November

of

Trotman's remaining claims are brought solely pursuant to

Virginia

Code

section

claim.

Virginia
See

Va.

permits

Code

Ann.

a

§

two

year

limitation

for

8.01-248.®

Hence, Trotman should have filed his Complaint within

two years

such a

57-1.

8.01-243

from when the underlying claims accrued.

and

"A claim

accrues when the plaintiff becomes aware of his or her injury.
United States v.

Kubrick,

444 U.S.

Ill,

123

(1979),

or when he

or she 'is put on notice . . . to make reasonable inquiry' as to
whether a

2424084,

claim exists."

at

*4

(E.D.

(quoting Nasim v.
(4th Cir.

Almond v.

Va.

Warden,

Aug.

6,

Sisk,

2009)

No.

3:08CV138,

2009 WL

(omission in original)

Md. House of Corr.,

64

F.3d 951,

1995).

Trotman filed his initial Complaint on October 13,
(ECF No.

1,

timely,
2015.

955

the

at 1.)

Thus,

for Trotman's remaining claims to be

claims must have

However,

the

2017.^

accrued on or after October 13,

Particularized Complaint

clearly

indicates

® It is unclear whether a claim under Virginia Code section
57-1 would be considered a personal injury claim.

Virginia

Code

section

8.01-248

governs

Nevertheless,

"Personal

actions

for

which no other limitation is specified" and also provides a two-

year

statute

of

limitations,

Va.

Code Ann.

the

Court

§

8.01-248

(West

2018) .

This
"RECEIVED."

is

the

(ECF No.

day
1,

that
at 1.)

12

marked

the

Complaint

that Claims One,

Two,

and Four through Ten accrued between May

of 2013 and November of 2014.

Accordingly,

because Claims One,

Two, and Four through Ten are untimely filed,

these claims will

be also dismissed with prejudice.

V.

Defendants

Barber,

CONCLUSION

Fisher,

Parham,

will be dismissed without prejudice.
dismissed with prejudice.
The

Clerk

is

Grogan,

and

Henderson

Trotman's claims will be

The action will be dismissed.

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Trotman.
It

is

so ORDERED.

/s/
Robert E.

nw

Payne

Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia
Date:

13