Jacob Zeno v. Johnny Hall, et al.

Zeno v. Hall · United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division · March 19, 2026 · No. 7:24-cv-00573

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted correctional officials’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Jacob Zeno’s § 1983 claims arising from an inmate attack at Red Onion State Prison. The court held that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference, failure to intervene, or supervisory liability under the Eighth Amendment, and dismissed the official-capacity claims. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissed them without prejudice, and granted Zeno 30 days to file a second amended complaint.

Holdings

  1. The official-capacity § 1983 claims must be dismissed because an official-capacity suit is treated as a suit against the State, and the complaint did not allege an ongoing violation supporting prospective relief under the Ex parte Young exception.
  2. The amended complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against any defendant for failure to protect Zeno from the inmate attack.
  3. The amended complaint failed to state a claim based on the defendants' alleged failure to intervene in the attack.
  4. The supervisory-liability claims must be dismissed because the complaint alleged no underlying constitutional violation and did not satisfy the Fourth Circuit's requirements for supervisory liability.
  5. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect or failure-to-intervene claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants in their individual capacities.
  2. Whether the defendants could be held liable under § 1983 in their official capacities for damages or prospective equitable relief.
  3. Whether the complaint stated a claim for supervisory liability under § 1983.
  4. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (34)

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214, 225 (4th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985)(followed)
  • Safar v. Tingle, 859 F.3d 241, 245 (4th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)(followed)
  • Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)(followed)
  • Lawson v. Gault, 828 F.3d 239, 278 (4th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)(followed)
  • Biggs v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 953 F.3d 236, 242 (4th Cir. 2020)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 34.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…