Frazier v. Winston

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 9/22/2020. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
AUNDREA AUNTONIO
OTAGA FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE WINSTON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:20cv00386
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen
United States District Judge

Plaintiff Aundrea Auntonio Otaga Frazier, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the New River Valley Regional Jail. (See ECF
No. 1.) By order entered July 27, 2020, the court conditionally filed Frazier’s complaint,
advising him that the complaint failed to state a federal claim because the jail is not a “person”
subject to suit under § 1983, and because he failed to allege any facts against or conduct
committed by a defendant. (See ECF No. 7.) The court gave Frazier the opportunity to file an
amended complaint and advised him that the amended complaint would replace his original
complaint and constitute the sole complaint in this action. (Id.) Frazier filed an amended
complaint, naming George Winston as the sole defendant. (See ECF No. 8.) Frazier alleges
that he was assaulted by another inmate and has been “totally discriminated against,” including
by being fired from his trustee position “for no reason,” since filing this action. (Id.) Frazier
alleges no facts against or conduct committed by defendant Winston. In fact, Winston’s name
appears only in the caption of the complaint.

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). To state a claim against a prison official for failure
to protect from inmate violence, an inmate must plead facts that show: (1) he was incarcerated
under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) the official was deliberately
indifferent to that substantial risk to his health and safety; and (3) the official’s deliberate
indifference caused him harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To state a claim
against a prison official for First Amendment retaliation, an inmate must plead facts that allege:
(1) the plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected First Amendment activity; (2) the
defendant took an action that adversely affected that protected activity; and (3) there was a
causal relationship between the plaintiff’s protected activity and the defendant’s conduct.
Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 249 (4th Cir. 2017).
Despite being given the opportunity to amend his complaint, Frazier fails to allege any
facts against or conduct committed by defendant Winston. Further, nothing in Frazier’s
amended complaint suggests that Winston was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of
harm, or that Winston retaliated against Frazier for filing this action. Accordingly, I conclude
that Frazier’s complaint fails to state a claim against the defendant and, thus, will dismiss this
action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
22nd
ENTERED this ____ day of September, 2020.

____________________________________
Hon. Thomas T. Cullen
United States District Judge