Taylor Kahliq Jamal v. Red Onion State Prison, et al.

Jamal · United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division · June 11, 2026 · No. 7:25CV00794

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia screened a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action. The court dismissed claims against Red Onion State Prison and supervisory officials without prejudice, while allowing claims against three correctional officers to proceed. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking transfer to another facility and granted in forma pauperis status subject to installment payments.

Holdings

  1. At the screening stage, Jamal's allegations against Fox, Allen, and Brown appeared facially plausible and those claims could proceed.
  2. Red Onion State Prison is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, so the claims against it were dismissed without prejudice.
  3. Supervisory officials cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 solely because of their managerial positions; a plaintiff must plausibly allege personal involvement or the elements of supervisory liability. Jamal's claims against Holloway, Anderson, and Hall were dismissed without prejudice.
  4. Jamal was not entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring transfer to another facility because he did not satisfy the Winter requirements, sought relief based on new claims not raised in the complaint, and had no constitutional right to confinement in a particular prison or jail within the state.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint stated plausible § 1983 excessive-force claims against Fox, Allen, and Brown.
  2. Whether Red Onion State Prison is a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  3. Whether supervisory officials may be held liable under § 1983 based solely on their managerial positions absent plausible allegations of personal involvement or supervisory deliberate indifference.
  4. Whether Jamal was entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring his transfer to another correctional facility, including whether the motion asserted claims unrelated to the complaint and established the Winter factors.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (14)

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)(followed)
  • McCoy v. Chesapeake Corr. Ctr., 788 F. Supp. 890, 894 (E.D. Va. 1992)(followed)
  • Bolick v. Anderson, 169 F.4th 528, 541 (4th Cir. 2026)(followed)
  • Shaw v. Shroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798–99 (4th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 226 (4th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340, 350 (4th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372–73 (4th Cir. 1984)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…