Joseph Jerome Dupree v. Roy Witham, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia screened Joseph Jerome Dupree’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Particularized Complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court held that the complaint plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Officer T. Fleming, but dismissed with prejudice the claims against supervisory officials Roy Witham and Captain Wynne for lack of personal involvement. The action will continue against Fleming.

Holdings

1. The particularized complaint plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Fleming and therefore survived screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2).
2. Dupree failed to state a claim against Witham and Wynne because he did not allege that either defendant personally participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dupree plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Officer T. Fleming sufficient to survive screening.
2. Whether Dupree plausibly stated constitutional claims against supervisory jail officials Roy Witham and Captain Wynne based on their positions and alleged supervisory responsibility.
3. Whether supervisory officials may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely because they supervised an official who allegedly violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Disposition

other