Unger v. Aston
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 8/30/2017. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROBERT ALLAN UNGER,
Civil Action No. 7:16cv00528
By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge
Plaintiff Robert Allan Unger, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning an order of interdiction against him in Frederick
County, Virginia. Having reviewed the complaint, I conclude that it must be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
Unger names Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Derrick Aston as the sole defendant to
this action and alleges that Aston was involved in the case that resulted in the order of
interdiction against Unger. Although largely incomprehensible, it appears that Unger is alleging
that the order of interdiction was entered against him in 2012, for an initial period of one year
and that the interdiction is “continued” “year after year.” Unger states that he asked to vacate the
order of interdiction, apparently to no avail, after he had “no public intox[ication] charges.”
Unger asks the court to assist Aston in making an agreement to cancel the order of interdiction.
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that
plaintiff has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States
and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person acting under color of state
law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). In this case, Unger has not alleged that he has been
deprived of any right guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Moreover, as
an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney, Aston is immune from suit in his official capacity under
the Eleventh Amendment, see Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334, 340 (4th Cir. 1996) (citing
Bockes v. Fields, 999 F.2d 788, 790-91 (4th Cir. 1993)); and he is entitled to absolute immunity
for acts within the scope of his prosecutorial duties, see Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420
(1976); Springmen v. Williams, 122 F.3d 211, 213 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, I will dismiss
this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
ENTER: This 30th day of August, 2017.
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?