Wilson v. US District Court et al, No. 3:2023cv00542 - Document 4 (E.D. Va. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Roderick C. Young on 8/31/2023. Copy to Plaintiff as directed. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilson v. US District Court et al Doc. 4 Case 3:23-cv-00542-RCY Document 4 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division VINCENT ELLIOT WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:23CV542 (RCY) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, et. al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate, brings the present action that was transferred to this Court by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis.1 The pertinent statute provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has at least three other actions or appeals that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Wilson v. Arthur, No. 3:23cv82 (DJN), 2023 WL 2506420, at *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2023); Wilson v. Burgess, No. 3:22cv662 (DJN), 2023 WL 2505863, at *5 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2023); Wilson v. Arthur, No. 3:22cv602 (DJN), 2023 WL 2507554, at *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2023), aff’d 2023 WL 4839377 (4th Cir. July 28, 2023); Wilson v. U.S.P.S, No. 3:22cv689 (DJN), 2023 WL 1997069, *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2023); Wilson v. Lindsey, No. 3:23cv83 (DJN), 2023 WL 1997070, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2023), aff’d 2023 WL 1 The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:23-cv-00542-RCY Document 4 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 4 4839386 (4th Cir. July 28, 2023). Plaintiff’s current complaint does not suggest that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm.2 Accordingly, his request to proceed in forma pauperis will be DENIED. The action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff remains free to submit a new complaint with the full $402 filing fee. The Court will process such a complaint as a new civil action. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ Roderick C. Young ung United States District istrict Judge Juddggee Date: August 31, 2023 Richmond, Virginia 2 Plaintiff names the United States District Court, United States District Court Judge David J. Novak, United States Magistrate Judge Mark. R. Colombell, and the Commonwealth of Virginia and faults them for dismissing his many cases and “switching words around in the complaint.” e about his (ECF No. 1, 5–8.) The remainder of the action is a general airing of grievances vide hhi im tr ttreatment reeaatm tment for conditions of confinement, including that the detention center did not provide him hat thee Cl C ler erk’ k s Of cancer for two years upon his initial arrival (id. at 6), and his contention that Clerk’s Office n Countyy Ja ail i is try allegedly has hung up on him when he tries to “tell them that the Arlington Jail trying if tthe h named to kill him in his food and ask[s] to speak with police or Marshals.” (Id.)) E Even if Defendants were somehow personally involved in these allegations, which they are not, Plaintiff fails to show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Further, the Court notes that the Clerk’s Office has been extraordinarily patient with and accommodating to Wilson, and as he has been reminded previously, see Wilson v. O’Bryant, No. 3:22CV556 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2022), Wilson should only call the Clerk’s Office with legitimate questions about the processing or status of open cases not to simply harass or ask questions that have already been answered by order of the Court. Wilson may not call the Clerk’s Office to complain about fees, how the institution collects them, refunds, or free copies (which Wilson is well aware the Court will not provide), or he may face further Court-imposed restrictions. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
