Shupe v. SWVRJA - Duffield

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia
DecidedAugust 18, 2025
Docket7:24-cv-00798
StatusUnknown

This text of Shupe v. SWVRJA - Duffield (Shupe v. SWVRJA - Duffield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shupe v. SWVRJA - Duffield, (W.D. Va. 2025).

Opinion

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COU] AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 18, 2025 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION BY: S/A. Beeson DEPUTY CLERK CHARLOTTE SHUPE, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:24cv00798 ) v. ) OPINION and ORDER ) SWVRJA-DUFFIELD, et al., ) By: Robert S. Ballou Defendants. ) United States District Judge

Plaintiff Charlotte Shupe, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority, Duffield, and its mental health department, alleging that she is not receiving her mental health medication, even though she refilled it and brought it with her from the jail in Tennessee when she was transferred. Further, she alleges that the facility’s 21-hours per day lockdown is jeopardizing her mental health. Reviewing her complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I find that it currently fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Section 1983 provides a cause of action against a “person” who, acting under color of state law, violates the constitutional rights of another. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Loftus v. Bobzien, 848 F.3d 278, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2017). A jail is not a person within the meaning of § 1983 and lacks the capacity to be sued. McCoy v. Chesapeake Corr. Ctr, 788 F. Supp. 890, 893-94 (E.D. Va. 1992). Likewise, the jail’s “mental health department” is not a person. Further, liability under § 1983 is “personal, based upon each defendant’s own constitutional violations.” Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 402 (4th Cir. 2001). Under § 1983, a person acting under state law is liable only for his or her own misconduct; the theory of respondeat superior does not apply to constitutional litigation, and a supervisor or employer cannot be held liable for the conduct of an employee just because the employee is supervised by

or works for the other person or entity. King v. Riley, 76 F.4th 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2023). A proper claim requires the names of individuals who violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and factual details about how each such individual violated plaintiff’s rights. Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2017). Because plaintiff is proceeding without an attorney, the court will give her the

opportunity to amend her complaint within thirty (30) days, if she chooses to do so. The amended complaint should name as a defendant each person whom she believes violated her constitutional rights and clearly state how each defendant violated her rights. If plaintiff chooses not to amend her complaint within that time, the court will dismiss the action for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Enter: August 15, 2025 //s/ Robert S. Ballou Robert S. Ballou United States District Judge Rev. 6/2025 Prisoner Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Western District of Virginia Roanoke Division

AMENDED COMPLAINT Civil Action No. /:24-CV-00798 (Form for Pro Se Prisoners) District Judge Ballou Magistrate Judge Sargent (To be filled out by Clerk’s Office only)

(In the space above, enter your full name and inmate number. You will be referred to as the plaintiff.)

-against- Jury Demand LlYes L] No

(In the space above, enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s). If you cannot fit the names of all the defendants in the space provided, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed in the above caption must be identical to those contained in Section IV. Do not include addresses here.)

NOTICE Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 addresses the privacy and security concerns resulting from public access to electronic court files. Under this rule, papers filed with the court should not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number.

Page | of 9

1. JURISDICTIONAL BASIS FOR COMPLAINT Indicate below the federal legal basis for your claim, if known. This form is designed primarily for pro se prisoners challenging the constitutionality of their treatment or the conditions of their confinement, claims which are often brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against state, county, or municipal defendants) or in a “Bivens” action (against federal defendants). It may also be used for the filing of a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the United States if you are claiming personal injury, property loss, or other damage caused by a federal agency or federal employee. Action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (defendants are agents or employees of a state, county, or municipality) (1 = Action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (defendants are federal agents or employees) (1 Action under Federal Tort Claims Act (The United States is the proper defendant, and the plaintiff must have presented his or her claim in writing to the appropriate federal agency and received a notice of final denial of the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) prior to filing a case in this court) [] Other (specify the basis)

Il. PLAINTIFF INFORMATION

Name

Inmate #

Current Place of Detention

Institutional Address

City State Zip Code il. PLAINTIFF STATUS Indicate whether you are a prisoner or other confined person as follows: s*Pretrial detainee: LJ State or LJ Federal Page 2 of 9

= Cavilly committed detainee Immigration detainee [1 Convicted and sentenced state prisoner Convicted and sentenced federal prisoner C11 custody C1 = Other: IV. DEFENDANT(S) INFORMATION Please list the following information for each defendant. If the correct information is not provided, it could result in the delay or prevention of service. Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical to those contained in the above caption. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Defendant 1:

Current Job Title

Current Work Address

City State Zip Code

Capacity in which being sued: U1 Individual Official O Both Defendant 2:

City State Zip Code Capacity in which being sued: U1 Individual Official O Both

Page 3 of 9

Defendant 3:

Capacity in which being sued: U1 Individual Official O Both Defendant 4:

City State Zip Code Capacity in which being sued: U1 Individual Official O Both STATEMENT OF CLAIM(S) (If you are making multiple claims, please number them.) Place(s) of occurrence:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McCoy v. Chesapeake Correctional Center
788 F. Supp. 890 (E.D. Virginia, 1992)
Nancy Loftus v. David Bobzien
848 F.3d 278 (Fourth Circuit, 2017)
Torrey F. Wilcox v. Betty Brown
877 F.3d 161 (Fourth Circuit, 2017)
Trulock v. Freeh
275 F.3d 391 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
David King v. Timothy Riley
76 F.4th 259 (Fourth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shupe v. SWVRJA - Duffield, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shupe-v-swvrja-duffield-vawd-2025.