Case Information
*0 (cid:36)(cid:45)(cid:38)(cid:51)(cid:44)(cid:104)(cid:52)(cid:1)(cid:48)(cid:39)(cid:39)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:38)(cid:1)(cid:54)(cid:15)(cid:52)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:42)(cid:52)(cid:53)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:48)(cid:54)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:53)(cid:1)(cid:51)(cid:48)(cid:34)(cid:47)(cid:48)(cid:44)(cid:38)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:55)(cid:34)(cid:39)(cid:42)(cid:45)(cid:38)(cid:37) (cid:35)(cid:58)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:45)(cid:34)(cid:54)(cid:51)(cid:34)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:54)(cid:52)(cid:53)(cid:42)(cid:47)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:45)(cid:38)(cid:51)(cid:44)(cid:1) s/A. Beeson (cid:37)(cid:38)(cid:49)(cid:54)(cid:53)(cid:58)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:45)(cid:38)(cid:51)(cid:44) *1 November 17, 2025 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION
JAH’SIR NA’IL JACKSON )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25CV00538
)
v. ) OPINION
)
RED ONION STATE PRISON, ) J UDGE J
)
)
Defendant. )
Jah’sir Na’il Jackson, Pro Se Plaintiff.
The plaintiff, an unrepresented Virginia inmate, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that unspecified prison officials allowed other inmates to
attack him and denied his access to medical care. Upon review of the record, I find
that the action must be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Jackson alleges in his Complaint that on an unspecified date, he was secured in his cell when an unnamed officer in the control booth permitted three inmates to
enter the cell, where they beat and stabbed Jackson. Then, officers allowed the
attackers to return to their cells. Jackson also claims that two unnamed floor officers
denied his request for medical attention “to cover their tracks.” Compl. 2, ECF No.
1. Jackson sues Red Onion State Prison (ROSP), seeking monetary damages and a
transfer to another region.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), the court must dismiss any § 1983 action “with respect to prison conditions . . . if the court is satisfied that the action is
frivolous, malicious, [or] fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A
complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Giarratano v. Johnson , 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th
Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
Section 1983 permits an aggrieved party to file a civil action against a person for actions taken under color of state law that violated his constitutional rights.
Cooper v. Sheehan , 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013). “[N]either a State nor its
officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will v. Mich.
Dep’t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). This rule also applies to
“governmental entities that are considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh
Amendment purposes.” Id. at 70 (citation omitted). Because ROSP is properly
considered an arm of the Commonwealth of Virginia, it cannot be sued under § 1983.
Because Jackson’s § 1983 claim cannot proceed against the only defendant he has
named, I will summarily dismiss the action without prejudice under § 1997e(c)(1)
as legally frivolous.
I will, however, give Jackson 30 days to file an Amended Complaint, naming person(s) as defendants and stating facts about what each defendant did or failed to
do, personally, to violate Jackson’s constitutional rights. Any Amended Complaint
should be accompanied by a motion seeking reinstatement of this case to the court’s
active docket. If no such motion and Amended Complaint are filed within the
allotted time, the case will remain closed. In the alternative, Jackson may file his
claims in a new and separate § 1983 action at any time, subject to the applicable
statute of limitations, submission of the necessary financial information related to
filing costs, and correction of the noted deficiencies in the Complaint.
A separate Final Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: November 17, 2025 /s/ J Senior United States District Judge