Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stone v. Duffield Jail-Medical

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

July 10, 2017

TIMOTHY STONE, Plaintiff,
v.
DUFFIELD JAIL-MEDICAL, et al., Defendants.

          Timothy Stone, Pro Se Plaintiff.

          OPINION

          James P. Jones United States District Judge.

         The plaintiff, Timothy Stone, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that medical officials at the “Duffield Jail” had refused to authorize him for a job to earn money toward payment of his fines. Compl. 2, ECF No. 1. After review of the Complaint and Stone's many subsequent submissions, I conclude that the action must be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim.

         I.

         When Stone filed the action, he was incarcerated at the jail facility in Duffield, Virginia, one of several facilities operated by the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority (“SVRJA”). In his Complaint, Stone alleged that when he asked to be approved for a job to earn money toward payment of his court fines in November 2016, Nurse Scott told him that he did not meet the jail's medical criteria to work, but would not say why. Stone states that during previous terms of incarceration, no medical issues had prevented him from holding jobs on road crews and at a work release center.

         Stone filed a medical grievance, asking why he could not be approved for a job. The grievance response stated: “Not valid. Medical has a list of criteria that determine eligibility for different jobs here. If you do not meet the criteria, we cannot approve you for a job.” V.S. 2, ECF No. 2. Stone asked the control officer if he could speak with Captain Parks, and the officer said the Parks was “busy and . . . does not speak to inmates.” Compl. 4.

         Stone filed his Complaint in March 2017 against “Duffield Jail-Medical and Captain Parks.” Id. at 1. As relief in the case, he sought to be moved to the Tazewell jail facility closer to his family and to recover monetary damages for the mental anguish he had suffered as a result of the Duffield jail staff's alleged actions.

         The court notified Stone that Duffield Jail-Medical was not a proper defendant under § 1983 and granted him an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The court instructed Stone that an amended complaint should stand on its own as a complete statement of his § 1983 claims, naming proper defendant(s) and stating facts about what each defendant had done in violation of his rights. Stone has not submitted any document entitled Amended Complaint.

         Stone has submitted several letters that I construe as motions attempting to add to his existing Complaint. In one of these submissions, he states that Nurse Scott was the jail medical staff member who refused to tell him what medical problems were preventing him from getting a job. Stone also alleges that on March 16, 2017, two days after he mailed his § 1983 Complaint to the court, jail officials gave him a job.

         In other submissions, Stone alleges that on March 30, he heard two Duffield jail inmates say that an Officer Scott “had told them to scare [Stone] or beat [him] up so [he] would drop[]” the § 1983 case. Mot. Amend 1, ECF No. 19. He further alleges that a few hours later, while Officer Davis was making rounds in the area, the same two inmates came up to Stone and said that they were “going to beat [him] up and put [him] in the hospital.” Id; Mot. Prelim. Inj. 1, ECF No. 7. Stone looked for the officer and saw him “at the back of the pod just standing there smiling.” Id. The court received Stone's first letter about these threats on April 5, construed the submission as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking a transfer out of the Duffield facility, and directed the jail's superintendant to respond. On April 7, jail authorities transferred Stone to the SVRJA's facility in Haysi. Thereafter, I dismissed Stone's request for preliminary injunctive relief as moot. He continued to submit proposed amendments to add Scott and Davis as defendants to his § 1983 case, however.

         In other submissions, Stone proposed amendments to add a demand for monetary damages against Scott and Davis, to add a request for his early release from confinement, and to require the Duffield jail and Captain Parks to pay his fines.[1] I will grant these amendments and direct the clerk to add as defendants Officer Scott, Officer Davis, and Nurse Scott. For the reasons I will explain, however, even considering Stone's allegations as a whole, I find no set of facts on which Stone may recover relief in this § 1983 action.

         II.

         The court is required to dismiss any action or claim filed by a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer if the court determines the action or claim is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). An inmate's complaint may be summarily dismissed under this section if it fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In determining whether the complaint states a claim, a court must view the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but “need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Id. at 302 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted).

         Section 1983 permits an aggrieved party to file a civil action against a person for actions taken under color of state law that violated his constitutional rights. See Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013). Thus, a § 1983 plaintiff “must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.