Meyers v. Jones et al, No. 7:2018cv00414 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 11/02/2018. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERAJ OFFICEU.S.DIST.CGUR' I AT > IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR TH E W ESTE RN DISTRIC T O F W R G IN IA ROANOKE DIW SION OG ,VA FKED N2? 2 2gjg Ju BM m '* 'CLEM EP DA V ID M EY ER S, Plaintiff, CivilA ction N o.7:18-cv-00414 v. M EM OR AN DU M O PIN ION U.S.JUD G E JA M E S JO NE S,et al., D efendants. By:M ichaelF.U rbanski ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge David M eyers,aVirginia inmateproceeding pro K ,com menced tlliscivilrightsaction againstthreejudgesofthiscourt;VirginiaDepartmentofCorrectionsDirectorHarold Clarke;alzd çslked Ortion StatePrison g(çEROSP''))Employees.''Plaintiffisupsetabouttheconditionsof confinementheexperiencesatROSP andwithjudgesofthiscourtwhohaveruledadverselyon hism otionsand cases, many ofwhich werem alicious,givolous,andvexatious.1 Plaintiffseeks $15billionin dnmages,antGindependentinquiry''intotheClerk ofCourt'sandjudges'alleged conspiracy ofcorruption,and forthettunited StatesInspectorGeneral''tom onitorROSP and com mencecrim inalproceedingsagainstROSP staff.Thism atterisbefore the courtforscreening pursuantto28U.S.C.j1915A.Afterreviewingthecomplaint,thecourtdismissestheactionas frivolousand malicious. Thecourtm ustdismissan action orclaim filed by an inm ateifitdeterminesthatthe action orclaim isfrivolpus,m alicious,orfailsto stateaclaim on which reliefm ay be granted. See28U.S.C.jj 1915(e)(2),1915A(b)(1);42U.S.C.j1997e(c).ççFrivolous''includesclaims Meyers v. Jones et al based upon ttan indisputably meritlesslegaltheory,''tçclaim sofinfringementofalegalinterest Doc. 3 which cleady doesnotexist''orclaimswherethe Gtfact-ualcontentionsare clearly baseless.'' 1Thecourtheld ahearingon Augustl6, 2018,concem ing hisoriginalallegation ofimminentdangerin one ofthecases,Meyersv.U.S.PostalService.No.7:18-cv-00029.Themagistratejudgehasrecommendedthatthe courtallow Plaintifftoproceedwithoutprepayingthefillingfeeunder28U.S.C.j1915(g)basedonallegationsin thatcase>boutspecifcRO SP staff'sand inm ates'conductarotmd January2018.M eyersv.U .S.PostalService,N o. 7:18-cv-00029(W .D.Va.Oct.9,2018)(Sargent,M.J.). Dockets.Justia.com Neitzkev.W illinms,490U.S.319,327(1989).StM alicious''includesclaimsdeemed irresponsible,repetitive ofpending orpreviously litigation,harassm ent,threatening,insulting to thecourt,orabusiveofthejudicialprocèss.See.e.g.,Abdul-Akbarv.Dep'tofCon'.,910F. Supp.986,999(D.Del.1995);Davesv.Scranton,66F.R.D.5(E.D.Pa.1975).Althoughthe courtliberally construespro::complaints,Hainesv.Kerner,404U. S.519,520-21(1972),the .. courtdoesnotactasarlinm ate'sadvocate,sua spontedeveloping stattztory and constitm ional claimsnotclearlyraisedinacomplaint.SeeBrockv.Carroll,107F.3d241,243(4thCir.1997) (Luttig,J.,concuno g);Beaudettv.CityofHnmpton,775F.2d 1274,1278(4thCir.1985);see alsoGordonv.Leeke,574F.2d 1147,1151(4thCir.1978)(recognizingthatadistrictcourtisnot expected to asstlm etheroleofadvocate forapro K plaintifg. . Plaintifpsactionfordnmagesagainstthejudgesisfrivolousandmalicious,andthey cnnnotprovidetheequitablereliefheseeks.See.e.a.,Chuv.Griffith,771F.2d79,81(4thCir.' 1985);M ccrayv.M aryland,456F.2d 1,5n.11(4th Cir.1972).Also,Plaintiffpursuesan indisputably m edtlesslegaltheory by nnm ing a1lCSROSP Employees''asonedefendant. See.e.c., Fercuson v.M orcan,No.1:90cv06318,1991U .S.Dist.LEXIS 8295,at*2-4,1991 W L 115759, at*1(S.D.N.Y.Jtme20,1991)(recognizingthatagroupofpersormel,likedtmedicalstaff,''isnot açlperson''forpurposesofj1983).Plaintiffsrelianceonconclusoryassertionsofrespondeat superioragainstDirectorClarke isafrivolousattem ptto vex and harass,especially when viewed inthe contextofa1ltherepetitivecasesPlaintiffhasfiled in tiliscourtwithin thepasteighteen months.Seese.:.,Pittmanv.M oore,980F.2d994,995 (5th Cir.1993)(reasoning'thatharassing, repetitivelitigationismalicious);seealsoBellAtl.Corn.v.Twomblv,550U.S.544,555(2007) (relyingon labelsandconclusionsisinsufficient);M onellv.Deo'tofSoc.Servs.,436U.S.658, 663n.7,691-94 (1978)(discussingrespondeatsuperiorunderj 1983). Forthe foregoingreasons,thecourtdismissesthe action msfrivolousandm alicious.The courtnotesthatPlaintiffdoesnothave an absoluteand unconditionall'ightofaccessto courtsto prosecutefrivolous,malicious,abusive,orvexatiousmotionsoractions. Sem e.g.,Dem osv. Keating,33F.App'x918,920(10thCir.2002);Tirlkerv.Hanks,255F.3d444,445(7thCir. 2001);lnreVincent,105F.3d943,944-46(4thCir.1997).Federalcourtsmayissuepre-filing injunctionswhenvexatiousconducthindersthecourtfrom f'ulfillingitsconstimtionalduty.See. e.M.,28U.S.C.j1651(a);Fed.R.Civ.P.11(b)-(c);Vestalv.Clinton,106F.3d553,555(4th Cir. 1997).Beforebne ngfrivolous,malicious,abusive,orvexatiousflings,thecourtmustafford Plaintiffnotice and opporttm ity tobeheard.Crom erv.KraftFoodsofN .Am ..Inc.,390 F.3d 812,819(4thCir.2004).Accordingly,Plaintiffisgivennoticeofthecourt'sintentiontoentera pre-filinginjtmctionagainsthim,andhemayfileanyopposingargumentinthisactionwithin ffteen days. ENT ER : This day ofN ovem ber,2018. . @ '@% # ' . Chlef , .. téd StàtésDlstnctludge , 4 , :$' 1 . . 'r$' ?
]]>
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.
