United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Shauntez Hayes, Pro Se Plaintiff.
P. Jones, United States District Judge.
plaintiff, a Virginia jail inmate, filed this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that jail
officials were not providing him with adequate medical care.
The court directed Hayes to file an amended complaint
providing sufficient factual detail about what the defendants
had done or failed to do that violated his constitutional
rights. Hayes then filed his Amended Complaint. Hayes also
filed a motion that the court construes as seeking
preliminary injunctive relief to obtain medical care. The
court directed jail officials to respond and they have done
so. Upon review of these submissions, I conclude that
Hayes's Amended Complaint must be summarily dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As
such, his motion for interlocutory injunctive relief is moot.
Amended Complaint, Hayes names two defendants, Gregory
Winston, the superintendent of New River Valley Regional
Jail, and Lisa Ferguson, a registered nurse and director of
the jail's medical department. He alleges that in July
2018, he was booked into the jail and was reviewed by its
medical staff. Hayes told a nurse of his chronic medical
problems and signed a release to allow staff to obtain his
medical records. Hayes filed requests to see a doctor for
migraines, other chronic illnesses, and medications. He
alleges that he was placed on a list to see a provider on
five occasions. but did not see one on four of these
occasions. Am. Compl. 3, ECF No. 17. Hayes alleges that he
was given Tylenol, which is not advised for him
“because of [his] liver, ” that he was
“subjected to endure . . . pain without relief, ”
and to “unhealthy condition and violation of the
American Disability Act [sic].” Id. at 2-4. As
relief in this action, Hayes seeks monetary damages and
seeking to amend, Hayes states that after two requests to get
his “glasses screws tightened, ” he has received
no response. Mot. Am. 1, ECF No. 18. He asserts that because
he suffers from glaucoma and cataracts, not having full use
of his glasses puts him “at severe risk for more
intense migraines” and limits his ability to read or
conduct personal care. Id. at 1-2.
the court specifically directed Hayes to describe actions or
omissions by each of the two defendants in violation of his
constitutional rights, Hayes' has failed to do so,
despite being given a second opportunity. See, e.g.,
Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)
(finding that under § 1983, “[l]iability will only
lie where it is affirmatively shown that the official charged
acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff['s]
rights”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Because Hayes still fails to state specific actions
by the defendants that violated his constitutional rights, I
will summarily dismiss with prejudice this action for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Because the case
must be closed, I will also dismiss Hayes' motion seeking
interlocutory injunctive relief as moot.
separate order will be entered in accordance with this
 Hayes also alleges that he never
received an answer to any of his grievances, except one.
Id. at 4. He has no viable § 1983 claim for
denial of access to the grievance procedures. See Booker
v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 855 F.3d 533, 541 (4th Cir.
2017) (“[I]nmates have no constitutional entitlement or
due process interest in access to a grievance
 In addition, Hayes seeks release from
confinement, based on his purported need for medical care and
his inability to post bail. He is advised that release from
confinement is not a form of relief available under §
1983. It is well established that an inmate may challenge the
fact or duration of his detention based on federal
constitutional grounds only by filing a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, after first exhausting available state
court remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 489 (1973); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
 In any event, I do not find that Hayes
is entitled to interlocutory injunctive relief. Because such
relief is an extraordinary remedy, the plaintiff must show
that he “is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
The defendants have provided sworn evidence that
medical officials at the jail have responded in writing to
each request that Hayes has submitted about medical concerns.
In addition, he has received care from nurses on several
A jail doctor examined Hayes on October 5, 2018, after
he reported having been diagnosed with and treated in the
past for lupus, fibromyalgia, and a history of back and neck
surgeries. The doctor's review of Hayes's records
indicated diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome, bipolar
disorder, fibromyalgia, and hepatitis C. The records also
showed a prior discontinuation of medications for lupus, no
recent prescription for narcotics to treat fibromyalgia, and