Opinion
Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-00094
03-28-2016
EDGAR DWAYNE SAWYERS, Plaintiff, v. CAPT. BRIAN PARKS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Edgar Dwayne Sawyers, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff names Captain Brian Parks and Lieutenant Hayes of the. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail ("Jail") as defendants. After reviewing Plaintiff's submissions, I dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff seeks $1.5 million for "mental and physical damage" for two reasons:
I have not been given any rec time on yard or gym for over 4 mth. We are to get rec 1 time a week for a hour. After emails and grievance still no rec time. Denied copys of my request and grievances because they said I had to pay for them. I told them I had no money. I was indigent. They still would not give them.
I must dismiss any action or claim filed by an inmate if I determine that the action or claim is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The first standard includes claims based upon "an indisputably meritless legal theory," "claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist," or claims where the "factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The second standard is the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), accepting a plaintiff's factual allegations as true. A complaint needs "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and sufficient "[f]actual allegations . . . to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . ." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff's basis for relief "requires more than labels and conclusions. . . ." Id. Therefore, a plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [the] claim." Bass v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003).
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). Thus, a court screening a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) can identify pleadings that are not entitled to an assumption of truth because they consist of no more than labels and conclusions. Id. Although I liberally construe pro se complaints, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), I do not act as the inmate's advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of the complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). See also Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978) (recognizing that a district court is not expected to assume the role of advocate for a pro se plaintiff). --------
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff does not describe any serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions or demonstrate a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting from his unwilling exposure to the challenged conditions. See, e.g., Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 166 (4th Cir. 1995); Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375 (4th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff may not rely on mere labels and conclusions to state a claim, and a claim that prison officials have not followed their own independent policies or procedures also does not state a constitutional claim. See, e.g., United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 752-55 (1978); Riccio v. Cnty. of Fairfax, 907 F.2d 1459, 1469 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding that if state law grants more procedural rights than the Constitution requires, a state's failure to abide by that law is not a federal due process issue). Accordingly, I dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
ENTER: This 28th day of March, 2016.
/s/_________
Senior United States District Judge