Legg v. Putman Co. Sheriff Office
3:20-cv-00778
S.D.W. VaMar 4, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Robert Lee Legg, Jr., a pro se detainee at Western Regional Jail (WRJ), sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from an August 31, 2020 incident in which he broke his leg, was transported by a Putnam County deputy to a hospital, and later housed at WRJ.
- Legg alleges the deputy videotaped him, took his ring, and drove him around for hours; he alleges PrimeCare medical staff gave him sulfa medication and Benadryl despite allergies, causing an adverse reaction.
- At WRJ Legg claims he was placed in a top-tier top-bunk despite his broken leg and that Officer Roman labeled him a “baby rapist,” placing him at risk. He requested reprimands, termination of Officer Roman, damages, and (in a separate motion) release/immunity from state custody.
- The district court gave Legg multiple opportunities to amend after an initial screening; Legg failed to cure pleading defects or supply factual detail in response to a Show Cause Order.
- The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice (statute of limitations not expired), denies appointment of counsel and the motion for immunity/release as improperly raised in a §1983 action, and finds WRJ entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of §1983 pleading | Legg alleges constitutional violations (videotaping, property loss, medical harm, unsafe housing, verbal defamation) | Complaint lacks factual detail tying specific officials to constitutional violations; many allegations are conclusory | Complaint fails to state plausible §1983 claims and should be dismissed without prejudice |
| WRJ sovereign immunity (Eleventh Amendment) | Legg sued WRJ as a defendant in §1983 action | WRJ is an arm of the State and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; no waiver or abrogation applies; Ex parte Young inapplicable to agencies | WRJ dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds |
| Property deprivation (loss of ring, wallet, boots) | Deputy took Legg’s ring; WRJ lost other property | State post-deprivation remedies (tort claim, Legislative Claims Commission) are available; an unauthorized taking does not create a federal due-process claim | No federal §1983 claim for property loss; state remedies adequate, claim dismissed |
| Motion seeking release/immunity (motion for full immunity) | Legg asked the court to grant immunity and release from state custody | Request attacks duration/fact of custody; such relief is proper only via habeas or state-court process; Younger/Preiser principles counsel against federal intrusion into pending state matters | Motion denied; §1983 is not the vehicle for immediate release and federal court will not intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain plausible factual allegations; legal conclusions insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states are not ‘persons’ under §1983 for money damages)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective injunctive relief may be available against state officers)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (prison medical care claims require deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (unauthorized intentional deprivation of property does not violate procedural due process when adequate post-deprivation remedies exist)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus is the exclusive federal remedy to challenge fact/duration of confinement)