Case Information
*1 C ERKS OFFICE ,U S . DSST. O URT AT R- OKE, VA FILED IN TH E U NITED STA TES D ISTR IC T C O UR T 021 1 b 2212 FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA B * . JULKT. , RO AN O K E D IV ISIO N + / ; R CA SE N O . 7:12C V 00460 JAM ES JERR Y H AIR STO N , Plaintiff,
M EM O R AND U M O PIN IO N VS.
N EW RIV ER V A LL EY R EG IO NA L JA IL ,
c K , By: G len E. C onrad
C hief United States D istrict Judge Defendantts).
Jam es Jerry H airston, a Virginia inm ate proceeding pro . K , filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. j 1983, alleging thatjail officials have subjected him to overcrowding and inadequate m edical care and denied him access to a properly purchased law book, in violation of his constitutional rights. A fter review of Hairston's com plaint, the court sum m arily dism isses the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Hairston is incarcerated at the New River Valley Regional Jail (iûthe jail'') in Dublin, Virginia. Hairston alleges that the jail is overcrowded; the toilet facilities are infested with flies and diunidentifiable verm in'' and stink of urine; one sm all sirlk m ust serve 54 or m ore m en in one housing unit, and that sirtk is often contam inated w ith blood, hair, food, and other substances; oftk ials do not clean the separate shower and lavatory areas in the housing units w ith sufficient frequency; jail ofticials do not provide inmates with cleaning gloves or adequate cleaning products; airborne diseases spread çsrnmpantly'' through the jail; and noise levels in the jail's dorm s are tlunreasonable.'' Inm ates who have been sentenced to tw o to tive years in prison remain incarcerated at the jail for these lengthy periods, because Virginia Department of Corredions (çtVDOC'') facilities are overcrowded. In response to Hairston's grievance about *2 these conditions, ajail official responded that the jail met inspection by the VDOC and the Virginia Department of Health (ItVADH'') in 2012.
Hairston also complains that jail offkials have not provided appropriate follow up care for serious injuries he received in a vehicle collision before his incarceration. Jail officials did not perform any health screening on Hairston, did not obtain his m edical records until July 1, 2012, and ignored his com plaints about Giherniated areas arotm d his abdom en.'' W hen H airston filed an ktem ergency m edical request form '' in Septem ber 2012, com plaining of excm ciating pain and sw elling around his abdom en, he did not receive any im m ediate m edical attention.
Finally, Hairston complains that after his family complied withjail regulations to pay a publisher to send Hairston a 1aw book at thejail, officials there failed to deliver the book to H airston. U ltim ately, officials returned the book to the publisher.
As defendants in this action, Hairston names only the jail, the VDOC, and the VADH. Hairston seeks compensatory and punitive dnmages and injunctive relief, ordering that the offending housing areas be closed.
To state a cause of action under j 1983, a plaintiff must establish that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or law s of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct com m itted by a person acting under color of state law . W est v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). The court is required to dismiss any action or claim filed by a prisoner against a governm ental entity or official if the court determ ines that the action or claim is frivolous, m alicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief m ay be granted. 28 U .S.C.
j 1915A(b)(1).
The jail is not a tûperson'' and is therefore not amenable to suit under j 1983. Preval v.
Reno, 203 F.3d 82 1, 2000 W L 20591, at * 1 (4th Cir. 2000) (tmpublished) (quoting W ill v.
M ichigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)). Therefore, the court dismisses all claims against the jail, under j 1915A(b)(1), as legally frivolous. 1
Hairston also has no actionable j 1983 claim against the other defendants he has named: the VDOC and the VADH.lt is well settled that a state cnnnot be sued under j 1983. W ill, 491 U.S. at 71 (ûigNleither a State nor its ofticials acting in their oftkial capacities are tpersons' tmder j 1983.''). This rule applies ktto States or governmental entities that are considered ûarms of the State' for Eleventh Am endment purposes.'' J-d.,s at 70. Thus, the VDOC and the VADH, as agencies of the Commonwea1th of Virginia, cannot be sued tmder j 1983, and the court must dismiss Hairston's claims against them under j 1915A(b)(1), as legally frivolous.
Because Hairston nnmes no defendants in this lawsuit who are subject to suit under j 1983, the court will sllmmarily dismiss the entire action without prejudice. An appropriate order w ill issue this day.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this m em orandum opinion and accom panying order to plaintiff. Thi s t q day of october
EN TER : , 2012.
Chief U nited States D istrict Judge 1 Hairston also fails to allege facts stating an actionable Eighth Am endment claim concerning thejail conditions he challenges, because he does not allege facts suggesting that he, personally, has suffered, or is likely to suffer, any serious or signifkant injury from these conditions. See Shakka v.
Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 166 (4th Cir. 1995).