Sanders v. Roanoke Sheriff's Department

Opinion

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. CO AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 04, 2025 POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK DANVILLE DIVISION BY: s/A. Beeson DEPUTY CLERK WAYNE SANDERS, ) } Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25-cv-00227 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION } ROANOKE SHERRIF’S ) By: | Hon. Thomas T. Cullen DEPARTMENT, é¢ a/, ) United States District Judge ) Defendants. )

Plaintiff Wayne Sanders, proceeding pro se, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Roanoke Sheriff’s Department and “Medical” at the Roanoke City Detention Center. (See Compl. [ECF No. 1].) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his dietary restrictions and allergies have not been accommodated since his arrival at the detention facility. (See zd. at 2-5.) Before or soon after docketing, the Court must review the complaint in any “civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Following its review, the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of thereof, that is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” or that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Similarly, when a party, like Plaintiff has requested permission to proceed 7m forma pauperis, the court must dismiss a case upon determining that the action “(1) is frivolous or malicious; [or] (11) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted... .” Id J 1915(e)(2)(B).

Plaintiff’s claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes a civil action by a citizen deprived of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States by a person acting under color of state law. Plaintiff’s claims

against Defendants are frivolous and fail to state a claim because neither the Roanoke Sherriff’s Department nor the Roanoke City Detention Center medical department are subject to suit under § 1983. See Thompson v. City of Danville, Va., No. 4:10cv00012, 2011 WL 2174536, at *4 (W.D. Va. June 3, 2011) (“Local police and sheriff’s departments . . . do not have the capacity to be sued.”); Harden v. Green, 27 F. App’x 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The medical department of a prison may not be sued, because it is not a person within the

meaning of § 1983.”); see also Sanders v. Roanoke City Sheriff Dept., No. 7:22CV00591, 2023 WL 4824762, at *1 (W.D. Va. July 27, 2023) (dismissing prior claims by Plaintiff against jail medical department under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for this reason). Consequently, Plaintiff cannot proceed with his claims against either Defendant, and this action will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to refile a similar action against the correct person or persons in the future.

The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order to Plaintiff. ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2025. /s/ Thomas T. Cullen_________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE