English v. Roanoke Adult Detention Center et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 9/24/2024. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(tvt)

$-&3,h4
0''*$&
64
%*45
$0635

"5
30"/0,&

7"
'*-&%

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
JERMAINE ANTIONE ENGLISH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROANOKE ADULT DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

September 24, 2024

-"63"
"
"645*/

$-&3,

#:

s/5. 5BZMPS

%&165:
$-&3,

Case No. 7:24-cv-00401
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By:

Hon. Thomas T. Cullen
United States District Judge

Plaintiff Jermaine Antione English, proceeding pro se, filed a civil-rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the Roanoke Adult Detention Center, Western Virginia Regional
Jail, and Well Path Health Services as defendants. (See Compl. [ECF No. 1].) On August 27,
2024, the Court advised Plaintiff that neither a detention center, a jail, or a business is a
“person” subject to suit under § 1983, see Perdue v. Penalosa, 38 F.3d 1213, 1213 (4th Cir. 1994),
and that his complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. (See Order [ECF
No. 8].) The Court further advised Plaintiff that,
[t]o state a cause of action 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.
(Id. at 1 (emphasis removed).) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
21 days and cautioned Plaintiff that failure to amend could result in dismissal of his complaint.
(Id. at 1–2.) More than 21 days have elapsed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has an obligation to screen prisoner filings and
dismiss any complaint that “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1). As noted above, Plaintiff may not pursue a § 1983 claim against a detention
center, jail, or business because they are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute. See
Perdue, 38 F.3d at 1213. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims against the individual Defendants—Dr.
Kimla and Dr. St. Amair—are insufficient because Plaintiff does not allege that they took or
failed to take any action that violated his rights. (See generally Compl.) Instead, without
specifying which Defendants his claims are against, he simply alleges “they” ignored his
medical complaints, “failed to properly review [his] medical file,” “completely missed the
appointment,” and were “medical[ly] indifferen[t].” (Id. at 2–3.) These sparse allegations are
insufficient to state a claim against either individual Defendant.
Because Plaintiff’s original complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be
granted and because Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint correcting the identified
deficiencies, the Court will dismiss this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Memorandum Opinion and the
accompanying Order to Plaintiff.
ENTERED this 24th of September, 2024.
/s/ Thomas T. Cullen________________
HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-