Antonio Maurice Payne v. J. Causey, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 7:25-cv-00708
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CLERKS OFFICE □□□□ DIST. COL AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 19, 2025 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA — LAURAA. AUSTIN, CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION BY: 6/A. Beeson DEPUTY CLERK ANTONIO MAURICE PAYNE, ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25-cv-00708 ) ) By: Michael F. Urbanski J. CAUSEY, et al., ) Senior United States District Judge Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Antonio Maurice Payne, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 US.C. § 1983 against J. Causey and the Western Virginia Regional Jail. The case is presently before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Having reviewed the complaint, the court concludes that it must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. I. Background Payne is currently incarcerated at the Western Virginia Regional Jail in Salem, Virginia, where Causey works as a correctional officer. Compl., ECF No. 1, at 1-2. Payne alleges that he has been charged in a “high profile” criminal case and that he appeared in court on July 17, 2025, for allegedly violating a protective order. Id. at 4. He alleges that Causey testified at the hearing and that Causey “recklessly gave false statements under oath which assassinated [his] character.” Id. He seeks to recover monetary damages in the amount of $100,000,000.00 and requests that criminal charges be brought against Causey. Id. at 5. II. Standard of Review The court is required to review a complaint in a civil action in which an inmate seeks redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court

must dismiss a complaint if it “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.” Id. A complaint filed by a pro se litigant must be construed liberally. King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). “Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not, however, without limits.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint filed without the assistance of counsel “still must contain enough facts to

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Thomas v. Salvation Army S. Terr., 841 F.3d 632, 637 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). III. Discussion Payne seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 imposes liability on any person who, under color of state law, deprives another person “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “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). Payne’s complaint is subject to dismissal for several reasons. First, witnesses are absolutely immune from civil liability for testimony given in a judicial proceeding. Brice v. Nkaru, 220 F.3d 233, 239 n.6 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335 (1983)). This is true “even if the witness knew the statements were false.” Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 489 (1991) (quoting Briscoe, 460 U.S. at 332). Thus, Payne has no viable claim for damages against Causey based on the testimony at the hearing. Second, Payne has no “judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution ot non-prosecution of another.” Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Consequently, even if Causey committed perjury, Payne has no right to pursue criminal charges against him. Third and finally, the Western Virginia Regional Jail is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983, and the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of correctional officers employed there. See McCoy v. Chesapeake Corr. Ctr., 788 P. Supp. 890, 894 (E.D. Va. 1992) (concluding that a jail “is not a person under § 1983” and that “it lacks the capacity to be sued’); see also Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (explaining that municipal entitles “are responsible only for their own illegal acts” and “are not vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees’ actions’’). IV. Conclusion Por the foregoing reasons, Payne’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. An appropriate order will be entered. Entered: November 18, 2025 Michael F. Urbanski yee U.S. District Judge 2025.11.18 16:11:33 -05'00' Michael F. Urbanski Senior United States District Judge