VanPelt v. Stanley

• Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
• Decided: January 26, 2022
• Docket: 7:21-cv-00139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

MICHAEL ALLEN VANPELT, ) ) Civil Action No. 7:21cv00139 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) MARTY STANLEY, , ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendants. )

Michael Allen VanPelt, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was subjected to excessive force and denied equal protection. VanPelt names the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority (“Jail Authority”) as a defendant and the Jail Authority has moved to dismiss VanPelt’s claims against it.1 Having reviewed the pleadings, the court will grant the Jail Authority’s motion. I. VanPelt alleges that on June 28, 2019, he was “violently attacked” by Lt. Marty Stanley at the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail, Duffield facility, because he was “dressed as a woman.” (Compl. ¶ E [ECF No. 1].) As relief, VanPelt seeks $500,000 and a “therapist paid for for the rest of [his] life.” (ECF No. 21 pg. 1.) II. A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint to determine whether the plaintiff has properly stated a claim; “it

1 Defendant Lt. Marty Stanley filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28) that will be addressed separately. does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and

must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Legal conclusions in the guise of factual allegations, however, are not entitled to a presumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and quotations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” id., with all the allegations in the complaint taken as true and all reasonable inferences drawn in the plaintiff’s favor, Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2005). Rule 12(b)(6) does “not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Consequently, “only a complaint that states a

plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A claim is plausible if the complaint contains “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” and if there is “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678. In order to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim, federal courts have an obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally. See, e.g., Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.

364, 365 (1982). Moreover, “[l]iberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where . . . there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.” Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, “[p]rinciples requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not . . . without limits.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th

Cir. 1985). “A pro se plaintiff still must allege facts that state a cause of action.” Bracey v. Buchanan, 55 F. Supp. 2d 416, 421 (E.D. Va. 1999). III. VanPelt’s allegations fail to state a claim against the Jail Authority. “Local governing bodies . . . can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where . . . the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy

statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Thus, a governmental entity, such as a regional jail authority, is liable under § 1983 only when the entity itself is a “moving force” behind the deprivation. Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981). That is, the entity’s official policy or custom must have played a part in the alleged violation of federal law. Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 817-18 (1985). Although a pro se complaint is held to

“less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), a complaint must still “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim of 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)). In this case, VanPelt does not allege that any official policy or custom of the Jail Authority was responsible for the violations or injuries he allegedly suffered at the hands of

Lt. Stanley, and therefore, VanPelt has failed to state a claim against the Jail Authority. IV. For these reasons, the court will grant the Jail Authority’s motion to dismiss. This case will remain pending against Defendant Lt. Marty Stanley only.

The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order to the parties. ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2022.

/s/ Thomas T. Cullen_________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE