IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division BRANTLEY KING, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:25CV69 SALINE COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Brantley King, an inmate currently housed in Arkansas and proceeding pro se, filed this

action.' King has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. King’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 4), will be GRANTED. The matter is before the Court on King’s Complaint, (ECF No. 3), and for evaluation pursuant to

(e)(2) and 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the action will be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and as legally frivolous. I. PRELIMINARY REVIEW Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), this Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines the action (1) “is frivolous” or (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”

(e)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The first

' The statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute. . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action atlaw....

.

standard includes claims based upon “an indisputably meritless legal theory,” or claims where the “factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Clay v. Yates,

(E.D. Va. 1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989)). The second standard is the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ‘“‘A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin,

(4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true, and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari,

, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin,

. This principle applies only to factual allegations, however, and “a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “require[ ] only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the .. . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (second alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,

(1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” /d. (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,”

(citation omitted), stating a claim that is “plausible on its face,” id. at 570, rather than merely “conceivable.” Jd. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Igbal,

(citing Bell Ail. Corp.,

). In order for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, therefore, the plaintiff must “allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim.” Bass v, E.J. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

(4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2002); Jodice v. United States,

, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leeke,

(4th Cir. 1978), it does not act as the inmate’s advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll,

(4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton,

(4th Cir. 1985). II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS In his Complaint, King names the Saline County Jail as the sole Defendant. King contends that his rights were violated because he was twice convicted for the same charge. (ECF No. 3, at 4.) As relief, King requests to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Ill. ANALYSIS It is both unnecessary and inappropriate to engage in an extended discussion of the lack of merit of King’s theories for relief. See Cochran v. Morris,

(4th Cir. 1996) (emphasizing that “abbreviated treatment” is consistent with Congress’s vision for the disposition of frivolous or “insubstantial claims” (citing Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989))). King’s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and as legally frivolous.

First, in order to state a viable claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. See Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley,

(4th Cir. 1998). Neither “inanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds” nor collective terms such as “staff” or “agency” are persons amenable to suit under § 1983. Lamb v. Library People Them, No. 3:13-8-CMC-BHH,

, at *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2013) (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted) (explaining the plaintiffs “use of the collective term ‘people them’ as a means to name a defendant in a § 1983 claim does not adequately name a ‘person’”); Preval v. Reno, No. 99-6950,

, at *1 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) (affirming district court’s determination that Piedmont Regional Jail is not a “person” under § 1983). Here, King has failed to identify a person amenable to suit under § 1983. Second, to the extent that King challenges his ongoing detention as wrongful, he clearly seeks to invalidate a prior criminal conviction or to impede pending criminal proceedings. The notion that King can vacate or alter his criminal convictions and obtain injunctive relief through a civil lawsuit “is legally frivolous under Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994), and related cases.” Payne v. Virginia, No. 3:07CV337,

, at *2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2008). In Heck, the Supreme Court emphasized that civil tort actions are “not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.” Heck,

. Accordingly, King’s complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim and as legally frivolous.

IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the action will be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and as legally frivolous. The Clerk will be DIRECTED to note the disposition for the purposes of

(g). The Clerk will be DIRECTED to send King the forms for filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

= Is/ A. Gibney, Jr. □ Date: [? d0r9 Seni ited S i c United States District Judg Richmond, Virginia Or Hated States Distyict Judge