Spradlin v. US Marshal Service, VA et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 5/14/2015. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
JUNIOR KEMPER SPRADLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, ET AL.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 7:15CV00032

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge

Junior Kemper Spradlin, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the U.S. Marshals Service and other law enforcement agencies,
alleging that they violated his civil rights in unspecified ways. “The court shall review . . . a
complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity[,]” and “[o]n review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . .
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. . . .” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a)-(b)(1). Upon review of Spradlin’s complaint, I conclude that he states no factual
basis for a federal civil rights claim against the defendants he has named and, therefore, I will
summarily dismiss this case without prejudice as frivolous.
Spradlin sues the United States Marshals Service and one marshal; the sheriff’s
department of Sullivan County, located in Bristol, Tennessee; the Bristol, Virginia, police
department and SWAT team; and one detective from Washington, County, Virginia. Against
these defendants, Spradlin states only conclusory allegations that they violated his rights under

various federal statutes and state common law theories on April 27, 2011. * As relief in this
action, Spradlin seeks “compensation.”
Section 1983 permits an aggrieved party to file a civil action against a person for actions
taken under color of state law that violated his constitutional rights. See Cooper v. Sheehan, 735
F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013). Spradlin cannot prevail in a § 1983 claim or a Bivens claim
against the Marshals Service or any other governmental department or team, as these entities are
not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86 (1994)
(holding that a Bivens action is unavailable against a federal agency); Preval v. Reno, 203 F.3d
821, 2000 WL 20591, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 13, 2000) (unpublished) (quoting Will v. Michigan
Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (finding that state and its agencies are not persons
under § 1983).
Spradlin also fails to state any § 1983 claim against individual officers in any of the
named law enforcement agencies, because he does not allege facts showing that any particular
officer took actions that violated his rights. “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens
. . . suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s
own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676
(2009); see also Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (finding that § 1983
“liability will only lie where it is affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in
the deprivation of the plaintiff[’s] rights”).

*

In any event, this court has held that Virginia's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions,
Virginia Code §8.01-234(A), applies to prisoner civil actions, brought pursuant to §1983, as well as to
claims brought under Bivens. See Shelton v. Angelone, 148 F.Supp.2d 670, 677 (W.D. Va. 2001)
(refusing to apply §8.01-243.2 one-year statute of limitation in prisoner §1983 action) (citing Owens v.
Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 239-40 (1989); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985); Reinbold v. Evers, 187 F.3d
348, 358 n. 10 (4th Cir. 1999). Spradlin clearly failed to bring this action within two years of the alleged
violations.

2

For the reasons stated, I conclude that Spradlin’s submissions do not provide a factual or
legal basis for any claim actionable under § 1983 or Bivens. Therefore, I will dismiss the
complaint without prejudice, pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1), as frivolous.
14th
ENTER: This _____ day of May, 2015.

3