Strickler v. Jones

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 8/28/2017. (slt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
JAMES DAVID STRICKLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM JONES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:17cv00153
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff James David Strickler, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Tom Jones. Strickler’s complaint alleges
no facts against or conduct committed by Sheriff Jones. To state a cause of action under § 1983,
a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he 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).
The court conditionally filed Strickler’s complaint, advised him that the complaint was deficient
because it failed to allege facts against or conduct committed by the defendant, and gave
Strickler the opportunity to amend the complaint. (Dkt. No. 10.) Strickler responded with an
unsigned, partially amended complaint and asked for an extension of time to file an amended
complaint. (Dkt. No. 11.) The court granted Strickler an extension of time to respond, and
Strickler filed no further response. Because neither Strickler’s original complaint nor his
partially amended complaint alleges any facts against or conduct committed by Sheriff Jones, the

court will dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) for failure to
state a claim.1
An appropriate order will be entered.
Entered: August 28, 2017.

/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon
Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

1

Strickler alleges that he arrived at the Charlotte County Jail with medication for nerve damage and that an
unnamed doctor confiscated and discontinued the medication because it was “habit forming.” As relief, Strickler
asks to be placed in the Virginia Department of Corrections or sent back to the “Bristol, Va. Jail” and for $1500 in
damages. Strickler does not allege that the doctor denied his medication pursuant to any policy at the Charlotte
County Jail, thus, his allegations are insufficient to state a claim against the Sheriff. Himple v. Moore, 673 F. Supp.
758, 759 (E.D. Va. 1987). The court also notes that even if Strickler had named the doctor as a defendant, his
allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985).

2