United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
LARRY J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
MED-CO INC, ET AL., Defendants.
J. Williams, Pro Se Plaintiff.
P. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Larry J. Williams, a Virginia inmate proceeding
pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that he was denied prompt and
appropriate medical care at the regional jail. The court
notified Williams that his submissions did not make a clear
statement of who the defendants were or what each of them had
done to violate his constitutional rights and directed him to
file an amended complaint to correct these deficiencies.
Williams has now submitted his Amended Complaint. Upon review
of this submission, I conclude that the action must be
court provided extensive information to Williams about what a
viable Amended Complaint would need to do:
To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff
must establish that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed
by the Constitution as a result of conduct committed by a
person acting under color of state law. See West
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The complaint itself
must contain sufficient factual details about what each
defendant did to violate the plaintiff's rights. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“[A]
plaintiff must plead that each Government official defendant,
through the official's own individual actions, has
violated the Constitution”). Moreover, to proceed
against an organizational defendant like a jail authority, a
plaintiff must show how organizational policies have caused
him harm. Williams's current submissions fail to meet
these legal standards.
An amended complaint will take the place of all
Williams's previously submitted documents. Accordingly,
it must make a clear and sufficiently detailed statement of
what happened, including, but not limited to: what
Williams's medical problem is, what treatment he has
received, what requests he has made for additional treatment,
actions each defendant took in violation of Williams's
constitutional rights, and what harm he has suffered from
each defendant's conduct.
1-2, ECF No. 10. The Order also warned Williams that if he
failed to submit “an amended complaint stating all his
defendants and claims in one document and correcting the
deficiencies noted in the Order, ” this action might be
summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Id. at 2.
response to the court's particularized instructions,
Williams submitted the following Amended Complaint:
I applied for sick call over 8 times, and each time I was
told I'm on the Dr. list by 3 diffrent [sic] staff
members it started on 11-4-2018 with the sick calls! On
11-7-18, 12-31-18, 1-14-19, and 1-27-2019 I filed grievances
on the kiosk.
. . . .
I was told by the Doctor that I have a pulled ligament and
issued pills for pain in nothing else. My knee has continued
to get bigger an[d] swoller [sic] and it starting to draw up
in I'm living in constant pain.
. . . .
Regional Jail Authority sub-contract's Med-Co to provide
health care for the Inmate population so I'm sueing [sic]
South West Virginia Regional Jail Authority and Med-Co.
“Regional Jail Authority sub-contracts Med-Co”
Compl. 2, ECF No. 11. As defendants, Williams names the jail
authority and Med-Co, seeking monetary damages, “free
medical care for life, ” and for ...