Boggs v. Hembree et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; granting 30 Motion to Stay; the plaintiff may file an amended complaint by no later than February 27, 2018. The plaintiff is advised that, should he not file an amended complaint, this case will be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 2/6/2018. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
v.
)
MAJOR GEORGE HEMBREE, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
JEREMY MICHAEL BOGGS,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 7:17cv00426
MEMORANDUM ORDER
By: Hon. Pamela Meade Sargent
United States Magistrate Judge

Jeremy Michael Boggs, (“Boggs”), an inmate previously housed in the
Southwest Virginia Regional Jail in Duffield, Virginia, (“SWVRJ”), filed this case
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Major George Hembree and
Captain Brian Parks. The facts alleged in the Complaint are sparse.

In the

Complaint, Boggs alleges that he was:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Treated differently from other inmates;
Housed in the Special Housing Unit in his cell 23 hours a day;
Denied any drug or alcohol counseling; and
Unable to get responses to any grievances filed.

Boggs makes no specific allegations against either defendant, and he seeks no
specific relief. (Complaint, Docket Item No. 1.)
This matter is before the court on the Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), (Docket Item No. 17) (“Motion”). The plaintiff has
responded to the Motion, (Docket Item No. 20), and the defendants have filed a
reply, (Docket Item No. 29). Therefore, the Motion is ripe for decision. The

1

defendants also have filed a motion to stay discovery, (Docket Item No. 30)
(“Motion To Stay”).
In their Motion, the defendants raise a number of arguments in support of
dismissing the plaintiff’s Complaint. In his response, the plaintiff attempts to raise
a number of additional claims against additional individuals not named in the
Complaint. Based on the court’s review of the Complaint and all additional
materials filed by plaintiff, the Motion should be granted because the Complaint
fails to allege any personal involvement by the named defendants in the alleged
constitutional violations. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985)
(to establish liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that the defendants
“acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights.”) Therefore, the court
will grant the Motion, but give the plaintiff, acting pro se, an opportunity to file an
amended complaint.
For the benefit of the plaintiff, the court notes that a number of the
defendants’ additional arguments attacking the Complaint also have merit. For
instance, prisoners do not have a constitutional right to receive substance abuse
treatment while incarcerated. See Fredericks v. Huggins, 711 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir.
1983). Prisoners also do not have a constitutional right to participate in grievance
proceedings. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994).
Based on the above-stated reasons, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Motion, (Docket Item No. 17), is GRANTED;

2

2.

The Motion To Stay, (Docket Item No. 30), is GRANTED, and all
discovery in this matter is STAYED pending further order of the
court; and

3.

The plaintiff may file an amended complaint with the court by no later
than February 27, 2018. In this amended complaint, the plaintiff
should list each defendant against whom he is seeking relief, the
specific actions of each defendant that entitle him to relief and the
specific relief requested. The plaintiff is advised that, should he not
file an amended complaint by February 27, 2018, this case will be
dismissed.

Copies of this Memorandum Order will be certified to all counsel of record
and to the unrepresented plaintiff.
ENTERED: February 6, 2018.
s/

Pamela Meade Sargent
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3