Bowman v. Patrick County Jail

Opinion

CLERK’S OFFICE U.S. DIST. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA October 03, 2025 ROANOKE DIVISION LAURA A. AUSTIN, CL BY: S/J.Vasque: CHRISTOPHER WAYNE BOWMAN, ) pepe cress ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25CV00364 ) ) OPINION ) PATRICK COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., ) JUDGE JAMES P. JONES ) ) Defendants. ) ) Christopher Wayne Bowman, Pro Se Plaintiff. The plaintiff, an unrepresented Virginia inmate, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about living conditions at the Patrick County Jail. After review of the Complaint, I will summarily dismiss this action. The two claims that Bowman presents consist of sparse factual allegations without dates or details: Having to expose my private areas on camera in the intake cells in the jail. There is no way to use the restroom without exposing your privates on camera. Have to ask for STD treatment off the med cart and shouldn’t have to share my condition with no one but doctor and medical.

Compl. 2, ECF No. 1 (with minor alterations in spelling and punctuation). As relief he asks for cameras to be repositioned, for unspecified changes to the way medical

care is provided, and $5,000,000 in compensation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1), the court may summarily dismiss “a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from . . . [an] officer or

employee of a governmental entity” where the court finds that “the complaint . . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Section 1983 permits an aggrieved party to file a civil action against a person for actions taken under color of state law that violated his constitutional rights. Cooper

v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013). Bowman lists the following as defendants in this case: Patrick County Jail and Patrick County Jail Medical. A local jail facility cannot qualify as a person

subject to being sued under § 1983. McCoy v. Chesapeake Corr. Ctr., 788 F. Supp. 890, 894 (E.D. Va. 1992) (“[T]he jail is not a person under § 1983” and thus “lacks the capacity to be sued as a jail.”); see also Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (finding that under § 1983, “liability will only lie where it is

affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff[’s] rights”) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). Thus, Bowman has no actionable claim against the jail. He also has no viable claim

against the jail’s medical department. Such a group of individual medical staff members cannot qualify as an individual person subject to suit under § 1983, and Bowman fails to identify any individuals as defendants or to describe actions each

individual defendant took to violate his constitutional rights. Because Bowman’s § 1983 claims cannot proceed against the jail or its medical staff as a group, I will summarily dismiss the action without prejudice under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Such a dismissal leaves Bowman free to refile his claims in a new and separate civil action if he can correct the deficiencies described in this Opinion.* An appropriate Order will enter this day.

DATED: October 3, 2025

/s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge

* My recognition of Bowman’s opportunity to resubmit his claims in a new and separate civil action should not be taken as a finding that his allegations, if particularized, might state any proper § 1983 claim against anyone.