Jones v. Swanson Services Corporation et al, No. 7:2014cv00522 - Document 2 (W.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 10/20/2014. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Swanson Services Corporation et al Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION OWAIIAN JONES, Plaintiff, v. SWANSON SERVICES CORP., et al., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 7:14cv00522 MEMORANDUM OPINION By: Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge Owaiian Jones, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against Swanson Services Food Corporation and John and/or Jane Doe, seeking $500,000 because the defendants violated his constitutional rights. Given the nature of Jones claims, the court construed and docketed Jones complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After reviewing the complaint, however, the court concludes that the lawsuit must be summarily dismissed as frivolous. Jones alleges that the on or about September 17, 2014, the defendants started a new policy which required Jones to give purchased materials (i.e. batteries) to receive new batteries without consideration and delaying [Jones] refunds [for] 7 days. Jones further alleges that the defendant, via his new employee demonstrates rude, obnoxious, and some racial behavior. . . . [and] treats [Jones] differently than whites . . . . The court must dismiss any action or claim filed by a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer if the court determines the action or claim is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). A frivolous claim is one that lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989) (interpreting frivolous in former version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). The court s statutory Dockets.Justia.com authority to summarily dismiss frivolous complaints includes the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327-28. Jones legal claims under § 1983 are clearly baseless and, 1 therefore, the court will summarily dismiss the action under § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous. Entered: October 20, 2014 Michael F. Urbanski Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge 1 The court notes that Jones has filed twenty-eight civil actions in this court since July 10, 2014. See Civil Actions Nos. 7:14cv337, 7:14cv399, 7:14cv408, 7:14cv409, 7:14cv410, 7:14cv412, 7:14cv415, 7:14cv416, 7:14cv480, 7:14cv481, 7:14cv482, 7:14cv483, 7:14cv499, 7:14cv500, 7:14cv501, 7:14cv502, 7:14cv513, 7:14cv514, 7:14cv515, 7:14cv520, 7:14cv521, 7:14cv522, 7:14cv523, 7:14cv524, 7:14cv525, 7:14cv541, 7:14cv542, and 7:14cv543. Jones is advised that inmates do not have an absolute and unconditional right of access to the courts in order to prosecute frivolous, malicious, abusive, or vexatious motions. Demos v. Keating, 33 F. App x 918 (10th Cir. 2002); Tinker v. Hanks, 255 F.3d 444, 445 (7th Cir. 2001); In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1997). Jones is hereby notified that future frivolous and abusive filings may result in the imposition of a prefiling injunction against him. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. America, Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004). 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.
