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.

Robinson v. Fenner

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

August 8, 2019

WILLIAM ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
J. FENNER, et el., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO DISMISS)

          HENRY E. HUDSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         William Robinson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.[1] 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. 39).[2] Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 33, 36), [3] 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.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         By 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.)

         Thereafter, 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.)

         On 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.)

         On 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), [4] 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.)

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Amendments and the Motions to Dismiss

         With respect to amendments, the pertinent rule provides:

         (a) Amendments Before Trial.

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(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 ...

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.