Richards v. Parks

Opinion

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COU AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 13, 2025 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION BY: s/A. Beeson DEPUTY CLERK

River Richards, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00248 ) Major Brian Parks, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DISMISSAL ORDER Plaintiff River Richards, an incarcerated individual proceeding prv se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Richards claims his rights have been violated in connection with his incarceration that he contends was wrongful. Richards submitted the financial documentation and consent to collection of fees form required to support his application to proceed 7m forma pauperis. (Dkts. 6, 8.) While the court finds that Richards qualifies to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, it also finds that the complaint in this action fails to state any viable clatm upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the court grants the 7m forma pauperis application but dismisses this action without prejudice sva sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). I. Standard of Review The court must dismiss a complaint filed i” forma pauperis “at any time” the court determines that the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) ai); Extine Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2006). This statute

“is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

The standards for reviewing a complaint for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) are the same as those which apply when a defendant moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). Thus, in reviewing a complaint under this statute, the court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). To survive a motion to dismiss 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)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. While the court will construe pro se complaints liberally, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), the plaintiff must state a right to relief that is cognizable and plausible on its face.

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. II. Analysis Richards’ amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because he does not describe adequately any actions or inactions of sole Defendant Major Brian Parks that would support liability. Because Richards’ original complaint (Dkt. 1) also was deficient, the court entered an Order (Dkt. 9), which provided Richards an opportunity

to file an amended complaint with more information. The Order advised Richards that he needed to specify “what Parks personally did or did not do to violate his constitutional rights. Ud. at 2 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Brvens and § 1983 suits ..., the plaintiff in a suit such as the present one must plead that each Government-official defendant, through his own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”) (internal citation omitted)).) Richards’ amended complaint (Dkt. 10) still lacks a statement of what Parks personally did or did not do that violated Richards’ rights. ‘The conclusory allegations of wrongdoing are insufficient to establish a plausible claim of entitlement to relief, and thus the court will dismiss this action. III. Conclusion and Order For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the application to proceed 7 forma pauperis, but DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 US.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)an, 1915Ad)(1). The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Dismissal Order to Richards. IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTERED this 13th day of June 2025.

HON. JASMINE H. YOON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3.