David Carlyle Meeks v. SWVRJ-Haysi Facility et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss most claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by incarcerated plaintiff David Carlyle Meeks. The court dismissed claims concerning alleged verbal sexual harassment, PREA violations, the jail facility as a defendant, and retaliation claims against Officer Turner, while allowing the First Amendment retaliation claim against Sergeant Johnson to proceed. The court also denied Meeks’s discovery motion without prejudice and described procedures for any future amendment or discovery.

Holdings

1. A jail facility is not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, so the claims against the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail-Haysi Facility were dismissed.
2. The Prison Rape Elimination Act does not create a private right of action or specific substantive rights for inmates, and an alleged violation of the PREA therefore cannot support Meeks's § 1983 claim.
3. A single incident of verbal sexual harassment without physical contact does not state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983.
4. The retaliation claim against Officer Turner was properly dismissed because the complaint alleged no facts connecting Turner to the allegedly false disciplinary charge.
5. A plaintiff may not amend a complaint by adding new factual allegations in an opposition brief.
6. The alleged denial of one shower did not state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim where Meeks could wash at a sink and alleged no resulting injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail-Haysi Facility is a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the Prison Rape Elimination Act creates a private right of action or substantive rights enforceable through § 1983.
3. Whether isolated verbal sexual harassment without physical contact states an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983.
4. Whether the retaliation claim against Officer Turner was properly dismissed for lack of allegations showing his personal involvement.
5. Whether new factual allegations could be added through an opposition brief.
6. Whether the motion for discovery should be denied without prejudice after dismissal of the claims to which the requested discovery related.

Disposition

other