United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS
E. HUDSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Robinson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed
this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Robinson contends that
Defendants Officer J. Fenner ("Officer Fenner"),
Captain Hurlock, Lieutenant Hansen, and Magistrate Condra
Walker ("Magistrate Walker") violated
Robinson's rights during his incarceration at the Prince
William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center. For the
reasons set forth below, this action will proceed on
Robinson's Second Particularized Complaint (ECF No.
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 33, 36),
which were filed before Robinson filed his Second
Particularized Complaint, will be denied without prejudice.
Robinson's claims against Magistrate Walker will be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
Memorandum Order entered on June 12, 2018, the Court denied
without prejudice Robinson's three motions to amend his
complaint because Robinson had failed to submit a copy of the
proposed amended pleading with his motions. (ECF No. 13, at 1
(citing Williams v. Wilkerson, 90 F.R.D. 168, 169-70
(E.D. Va. 1981).) However, because the allegations set forth
in Robinson's Complaint failed to provide each defendant
with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which each
defendant's liability rested, the Court directed Robinson
to file a particularized complaint that remedied this
deficiency. (Id. at 2.)
Robinson filed his First Particularized Complaint. (ECF No.
14.) Shortly after filing his First Particularized Complaint,
Robinson filed another motion to amend, seeking leave of
Court to amend his First Particularized Complaint. (ECF No.
16.) By Memorandum Order entered on October 1, 2018, the
Court denied Robinson's request to amend his First
Particularized Complaint without prejudice because Robinson
had failed to submit his proposed amended pleading with his
motion. (ECF No. 18.) On October 5, 2018,
Robinson again requested leave of court to amend his First
Particularized Complaint. (ECF No. 19.) Robinson failed to
submit his proposed amended pleading with his motion. The
Court denied Robinson's request without prejudice in a
Memorandum Order entered on October 24, 2018. (ECF No. 21.)
November 1, 2018, the Court directed the Marshal to serve
Defendants with the First Particularized Complaint. (ECF No.
24.) On December 11, 2018, Defendant Magistrate Walker filed
a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 33.) Defendants Officer Fenner,
Captain Hurlock, and Lieutenant Hansen also filed a Motion to
Dismiss on December 11, 2018. (ECF No. 36.)
December 19, 2018, Robinson filed a Second Particularized
Complaint. (ECF. No. 39.) Subsequently, on December 26, 2018,
Robinson filed an Opposition to Magistrate Walker's
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40),  a Motion to Appoint Counsel
(ECF No. 41), and a Third Particularized Complaint (ECF No.
42). Thereafter, Defendants Officer Fenner, Captain Hurlock,
and Lieutenant Hansen filed an Opposition to Robinson's
Second Particularized Complaint and Third Particularized
Complaint. (ECF No. 44.)
Amendments and the Motions to Dismiss
respect to amendments, the pertinent rule provides:
Amendments Before Trial.
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course.
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or
21 days after service of a motion under Rule ...