Dillingham v. Hardy et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 6/29/2015. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
JAMES H. DILLINGHAM III,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. HARDY, et al.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 7:15CV00186

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge

James H. Dillingham III, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two officers of the Virginia Department of Corrections
(“VDOC”). Liberally construing Dillingham’s submission, he alleges that defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to inhuman conditions of confinement, in violation of plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment rights.1 “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 Dillingham’s

complaint, I conclude that he has not stated facts supporting any actionable claim against the
defendant under § 1983 claim. For that reason, I will dismiss this case without prejudice.
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). When liberally construed, the complaint must offer more “than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
1

Dillingham titles his submission “Notice of Intent” to file a § 1983 action about prison conditions.
Because no such notice is required to file a § 1983 action, the court construed and docketed the submission as a civil
rights complaint under § 1983.

678 (2009) (citation omitted). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Rather, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id.
Dillingham’s complaint does not state any factual matter on which the court could construe an
actionable § 1983 claim against the prison official defendants. His complaint is composed
entirely of conclusory assertions and legal conclusions, with no stated facts concerning conduct
undertaken by the defendants in violation of his rights.

Accordingly, I conclude that

Dillingham’s submissions do not state any claim of constitutional significance actionable under
§ 1983.

Id.

Therefore, I will dismiss the complaint without prejudice, pursuant to

§ 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim.
29th
ENTERED this _____ day of June, 2015.

2