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.

Pretty v. Campbell

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

September 26, 2019

ERIC PRETTY, Plaintiff,
v.
MEGHAN F. CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION (DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ACTION)

          HENRY E. HUDSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Eric Pretty, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By Memorandum Order entered on July 22, 2019, the Court directed Pretty to file a second particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. After receiving two extensions, Pretty filed his Particularized Complaint. (ECF No. 27.) The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

         I. PRELIMINARY REVIEW

         Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), this Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines the action (1) "is frivolous" or (2) "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The first standard includes claims premised upon "'an indisputably meritless legal theory, "' or claims where the '"factual contentions are clearly baseless."' Clay v. Yates, 809 F.Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Va. 1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). The second standard is analyzed under the familiar requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

         "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952. This principle applies only to factual allegations, however, and "a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (second alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id. (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, " id. (citation omitted), stating a claim that is "plausible on its face, " id. at 570, rather than merely "conceivable." Id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it will not act as the inmate's advocate and develop, sua sponte, statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

         II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

         Pretty alleges various perceived injustices stemming from his state criminal proceedings and incarceration.[1] Pretty alleges the following:[2]

Defendant, William Efird, is Richmond Public Defender's Office Head Superintendent. He is legally responsible for the overall operation of the Office of Public Defenders. William Efird directly participated in the violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment due to Virginia Code § 18.2-472, False Entries and Destruction of Records, Abuse of Process, Investigative Misconduct, False Arrest.
Defendant, Rebecca A. Vauter, is the Director/CEO of Central State Hospital. She is legally responsible for the overall operation of Ward 96-4, and the welfare of all patients that reports abuse by the hospital staff on duty, which get investigated in violation of the Eighth Amendment. She covered-up abuse by staff and stolen items. Legal mail.
Defendant, LT. Keitt, is a Correctional Officer of the Virginia Department of Corrections who, at all times mentioned in this complaint, held the rank of lieutenant and was assigned to Riverside Regional Jail. He is legally responsible for the operation of Riverside Regional Jail. Defendant Lt. Keitt stole legal mail and stopped and covered-up Plaintiffs prisoner grievance procedure, after all items [were] stolen out of room #11 in pod 2D, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Defendant, Meghan F. Campbell is a[n] Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney of the Colonial Heights Court System. She is responsible for representing the people of Colonial Heights City to present evidence in court against persons charged with committing crimes. She ha[s] used the courts as a weapon illegally with actions of perjury, investigative misconduct, abuse of process, nondisclosure of evidence, and misconduct in presentation of evidence, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Defendant, Commonwealth's Attorney's Office is responsible for representing the people of Colonial Heights, Richmond, and Henrico County. Cases presented by the Commonwealth's Attorneys are tried in the Circuit, General District, and Juvenile Courts. The Commonwealth's Attorney's Office illegal conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints, ineffective warrants, investigative misconduct, abuse of process, abuse of charging function, nondisclosure of evidence, misconduct in plea bargaining process, and misconduct in presentation of evidence to utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against Plaintiff Eric Pretty solely in retribution and to cover-up perjury, to put Plaintiff Eric Pretty in the sex offender registry. The actions in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment; Va. Code § 18.2-472, False entries and destruction of records by officers and clerk's offices.
Defendant, Richmond Public Defender's Office is people that conduct a legal defense against criminal charges that is called lawyers, to represent the public in the full capacity of an "attorney" on duty. The Defendant, Richmond Public Defender's Office illegally conspired and collaborated to elaborate long-term organized criminal behaviors of blackmail, retaliation, filed fictitious criminal charges with the help of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, investigative misconduct, abuse of process, nondisclosure of evidence, misconduct in plea bargaining process, misconduct at sentencing, and misconduct in presentation of evidence, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment, to cover-up the actions of Va. Code ยง 18.2-472. Since 11/09/2009 to 09/15/2019 present cases. The Public Defender's Office concocted two ineffective warrants from case numbers JA66074-3, JA66074-4; accused Bernard Becton on or about 03/24/1999 and 03/06/1999 based on the sworn illegally made police report and fictitious statements of Alice H. Winston of the Richmond Police Department on 07/30/2000 at 11:2l a.m. The Plaintiff, Eric Pretty was ...

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.