United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
E. Payne Senior United States District Judge.
Bowman, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, has filed this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action. By Memorandum Order entered on March 16,
2016, the Court directed Bowman to submit a Particularized
Complaint. (ECF No. 12, at 2-3.) Bowman complied with the
Court's directive and submitted his Particularized
Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) The matter is before the Court on
the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Mann and
Bryant. (ECF No. 19.) Bowman has responded (ECF
No. 24), and Defendants have filed a reply (ECF No. 25). For
the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the Motion to
STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency
of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests
surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the
applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C.
v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A
Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In
considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true
and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d
1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980
F.2d at 952. This principle applies only to factual
allegations, however, and "a court considering a motion
to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that,
because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled
to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require  only 'a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to "give
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (second alteration
in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,
47 (1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with
complaints containing only "labels and conclusions"
or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action." Id. (citations omitted). Instead, a
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient "to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level, " id.
(citation omitted), stating a claim that is "plausible
on its face, " id. at 570, rather than merely
"conceivable." Id. "A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 556) . In order for a claim or
complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim,
the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all
the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir.
2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d
193, 213 (4th Cir. 2002); Iodice v. United States,
289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court
liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it will not
act as the inmate's advocate and develop, sua
sponte, statutory and constitutional claims that the
inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint.
See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir.
1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of
Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
Particularized Complaint, Bowman states:
1. On October 11, 2013 a search warrant was executed at 4907
Jefferson Park Rd., Prince George, Va.
2. The search warrant specified to search the residence and
curtilage. No person(s) were named in the search warrant.
3. Plaintiff was an occupant of the residence along with 4
other adults and a [n] infant when the search commenced.
4. Plaintiff was arrested and questioned for [the] duration
of the search and was never free to leave.
(Part. Compl. 1, ECF No. 13.) Bowman seeks $250, 000.00 from
each Defendant, as well as a Court Order directing Defendants
to "pay the cost of the filing fee for this law
suit." (Id. at 3.)
Particularized Complaint raises the following claims for
Claim One: Defendants violated Bowman's rights under the
Fourth Amendment by arresting him without probable cause
while the search ...