Freeman v. N.R.A.D.C.
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 6/26/2013. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
KEVIN LAVELT FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
N.R.A.D.C.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 7:13-cv-00256
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By:
Hon. Michael F. Urbanski
United States District Judge
Kevin Lavelt Freeman, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with jurisdiction vested in 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiff names as the
sole defendant the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center (“Jail”). Plaintiff complains
about conditions of confinement at the Jail and the restrictions imposed for an institutional
conviction. This matter is before the court for screening, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. After
reviewing plaintiff’s submissions, the court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice as
frivolous.
The court must dismiss any action or claim filed by an inmate if the court determines that
the action or claim is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The first standard includes claims
based upon “an indisputably meritless legal theory,” “claims of infringement of a legal interest
which clearly does not exist,” or claims where the “factual contentions are clearly baseless.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Although the court liberally construes pro se
complaints, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), the court does not act as an inmate’s
advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims not clearly raised in a
complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring);
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). See also Gordon v. Leeke,
574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978) (recognizing that a district court is not expected to assume
the role of advocate for a pro se plaintiff).
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege “the violation of a right secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
However, plaintiff names the Jail as the sole defendant, and attempting to impose § 1983 liability
on a correctional facility constitutes an indisputably meritless legal theory. See McCoy v.
Chesapeake Corr. Ctr., 788 F. Supp. 890, 894 (E.D. Va. 1992) (“In addition to the fact that the
jail is not a person under § 1983, the jail itself is not an individual, a corporation, a partnership,
or an unincorporated association. Therefore, it lacks the capacity to be sued as a jail.”).
Accordingly, the court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying
Order to plaintiff.
Entered: June 26, 2013
/s/ Michael F. Urbanski
Michael F. Urbanski
United States District Judge
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?