This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
8
IV. Discussion
A. Count One
Several of the defendants argue that Count One of t he
Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief ca n be granted
because it ambiguously refers to a deprivation of C ivil Rights
under the ―laws, statutes, the United States Consti tution, and
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.‖ Compl. ¶ 15.
Although Count One is not a model of clarity, a car eful reading
of the allegations therein reveals Plaintiff‘s inte nt to assert
a claim against the City Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Because Count Seven of the Complaint also as serts such a
§ 1983 claim, Count One is addressed below, along w ith Count
Seven, in Part D of the Court‘s discussion of the i ssues.
B. Counts Two through Six - City Defendants5
The City Defendants assert that Counts Two through Six of
the Complaint fail to state a claim on which relief can be
granted because the City Defendants are shielded fr om liability
for state-law torts based on the doctrine of sovere ign immunity.
It is well- established that sovereign immunity is ―alive and
well‖ in Virginia and that such doctrine extends to a city
5 Plaintiff states in her briefs in opposition to the motions to
dismiss that i t is ―no longer relevant‖ whether Virginia law
affords her a right to relief as all Defendants are subject to
liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988. Because the Court is
unclear whether Plaintiff intends such statement as an express
withdrawal of her state law claims, the Court does not consider
such claims to be withdrawn. Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)