Jeffrey Allen Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al.

ETED weak February 19, 2026 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERI FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BY: s/J.Vasquez ROANOKE DIVISION DEPUTY CLERK JEFFREY ALLEN CARTER, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action Nos. 7:25-cv-00947 ) Vv. ) ) By: Elizabeth K. Dillon COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, et al., _) Chief United States District Judge Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Jeffrey Allen Carter, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 2-1, Am. Compl.) This matter is before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below, the court concludes Carter’s complaint must be dismissed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court must conduct an initial review of a “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” A complaint is subject to dismissal if it 1s frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pleadings of self-represented litigants are given a liberal construction and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 USS.

89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Liberal construction does not mean, however, that the court can ignore a clear failure in pleadings to allege facts setting forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).

Carter alleges claims that are related to his detention at Patrick County Jail and his transfer to the Southern Virginia Mental Health Institute. (See Dkt. No. 2-1.) Carter names these two entities along with the Commonwealth of Virginia and Piedmont Community Services as defendants. Carter requests compensatory and punitive damages from these entities. Carter cannot allege § 1983 claims against any of these entities.

First, Piedmont Community Services is a community service board (CSB), which is a joint partnership between local and state governments.1 “Quasi-local” agencies such as a CSB are not considered “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983. See Thorne v. Hale, No. 1:08cv601 (JCC), 2009 WL 3733344, at *4 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2009) (finding that the Rappahannock Area Community Services Board “is not a local government unit capable of being sued under § 1983”).

Second, the Southern Virginia Mental Health Institute is a public medical facility controlled and operated by the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Human Services.2 A state-owned hospital is “an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.”

Dowell v. W. Va. Reg’l Jail, Civil Action No. 7:20CV00055, 2021 WL 744759, at *4 (W.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2021). The Commonwealth of Virginia is also immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

See Napier v. Ohai, Case No. 7:23-cv-00098, 2025 WL 2779900, at *3 (W.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2025) (dismissing claims against the Commonwealth because the “Eleventh Amendment bars . . . claims under § 1983 and state law against the Commonwealth of Virginia . . . .”).3 Third, the Patrick County Jail is not a suable entity. See id. at *3 (collecting cases

Based on the foregoing, the court will issue an appropriate order dismissing this action for failure to state a claim and for seeking monetary damages against entities immune from such relief.

Entered: February 19, 2026. /s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon Elizabeth K. Dillon Chief United States District Judge