Earl v. Augusta Correctional Center et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 10/27/2020. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)
Case 7:20-cv-00165-TTC-RSB Document 9 Filed 10/27/20 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
SEAN SALLACE EARL,
Plaintiff,
)
)
Civil Action No. 7:20cv00165
)
v.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
)
OFFICER A. JOHNSON,
)
By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen
Defendants.
)
United States District Judge
________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Sean Sallace Earl, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Officer A. Johnson. The court has reviewed Earl’s
amended complaint, and concludes that Earl fails to state a cognizable federal claim against
the defendant. Therefore, the court will dismiss Earl’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1).
In his amended complaint, Earl alleges the following:
By Augusta County Circuit Court May 9, 2019 trial transcript,
Ashlyn D. Colvin said in the testimony on August 13, 2018 [that]
Sean Sallace Earl was not on the request form appointment list.
Transcript pages 13, 14, 15. N3 and N4 controlled movement
master pass list Officer A. Johnson breach[ed] prison security by
opening two slider doors in the back of N3 and N4 in the hallway
to Counselor Ashlyn D. Colvin[’s] Office. Transcript pages 16,
17, 18. By Augusta Correctional Center Orientation Manu[a]l,
communication with staff and controlled movement master pass
list. A violation of the 8[th] amendment cruel and unusual
punishment fundamental rights. [sic]
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). “While a court must accept the material facts alleged
Case 7:20-cv-00165-TTC-RSB Document 9 Filed 10/27/20 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 31
in the complaint as true, statements of bare legal conclusions ‘are not entitled to the
assumption of truth’ and are insufficient to state a claim.” Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388,
391 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from cruel
and unusual living conditions. In order to state a claim of constitutional significance regarding
prison conditions, a plaintiff must allege that the living conditions violated contemporary
standards of decency, and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to those conditions.
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991). A violation of a prison policy, by itself, does not support
a constitutional claim. See United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 752–55 (1979) (allegations
that officials have not followed their own policies or procedures, standing alone, do not
amount to constitutional violations).
Despite having the opportunity to amend his complaint, Earl has not alleged sufficient
facts for the court to determine that Officer Johnson subjected Earl to cruel and unusual living
conditions or that he violated any other of Earl’s federal rights. Accordingly, the court will
dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim.
ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2020.
/s/ Thomas T. Cullen
___________________________________
HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?