Meyers v. U.S. District Court Roanoke Division et al, No. 7:2018cv00458 - Document 4 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 11/2/2018. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cl-Ears OFFICE U.S.DISI K URT AT RG NOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA R OA N O K E D IW SIO N D AV ID M EY ER S, Plaintiff, k2k 22 2218 J BK c.D EY. C ivilA ction N o.7:18-cv-00458 M EM O M N D UM O PIN IO N U .S.DISTRIC T C O UR T R O A NO K E D IV ISION ,eta1., D efendants. By:M ichaelF.U rbanski C hiefU nited States D istrictJudge David M eyers,aVirginiainm ateproceeding proK ,comm enced thiscivilaction asa çtpetition forw ritofm andam us,''nam ing as defendants the ICU .S.D istrictCout' tRoanoke Division''and tsludicialCounciland CircuitExecutive.''Plaintiffisdissatisfied with therulings ofthiscourtinpriorcases,andseeksawritofmandamus,claimingthatvadousjudgesofthis courtçGaredismissingthecasesoutofracialhatred,andblackpenisenvytowardEhimj.''Pet. W ritM and.2,ECF No.1. Thisaction isdism issed asfrivolousand m aliciousbecauseitwascom menced forthe purposeofharassm entand notforthepurposeofvindicating acognizablerightwith an arguable basisinlaw orfact.See.e.:.,Neitzkev.W illinms,490U.S.319,328(1989).çsAlthough some casesthatdeserveimmediatedismissalwillnotalwaysfitarticulated standrds,thetrainedjurist can m any tim essee through a screen oftechnically recognized allegationsto discovera warrantlessaction.''Spencerv.Rhodes,656F.Supp.458,462(E.D.N.C.),affd,826F.2d 1061 (4th Cir.1987).Et-l-heclaim ...assertedcouldbeonethatwaslegallyrecognized,butom the Meyers v. U.S. District Court Roanoke Division et al Doc. 4 faceofthatcomplaint,theregilsnodoubtthattheplaintiffEiqspresentingthejudiciarywith nothingmorethanan opporttmitytowastesometime.''JZ 1G(T)hejudiciary,shouldnotwith precedent,tie0111*own handsto theextentthatwem akeotlrselvestm ableto keep protlitigation inthefederalcourtsfrom becomingaform ofrecreationforprisoninmates.''J.I.at463. Dockets.Justia.com M oreover,thecourtdeclinesto construethepetition asa civilrightsaction lmderBivens v.SixUnknownNamedAgentsofFed.Bureau ofNarcotics,403U.S.388 (1971),asitfailsto statea cognizablefederalclaim againstthenam ed defendants.To stateaclaim forrelieftmder Bivens,aplaintiffm ustallege factsindicating thathehasbeen deprived ofrightsguaranteed by theConstitution orlawsoftheUnited Statesand thattlzisdeprivation resultedfrom conduct committedbyapersonactingtmdercoloroflaw.W estv.Atkins,487U.S.42(1988);seeFnrmer v.Brennan,511U.S.825,839-41(1994)(indicatingthatcaselaw involvingj1983claimsis applicableinBivensactionsandviceversa).M eyers'petition allegesnofactsagainstorconduct com mitted by the nnmed defendants. Further,the United StatesDistrictCourtisnotatEperson'' subjecttosuitinacivilrightsaction,Fixelv.United States,737F.Supp.593,598(D.Nev. 1990),andBivensclaimsarenotactionable'againsttheUnited States,federalagencies,orpublic officialsactingintheirofficialcapacities,seeFDIC v.M eyer,510U.S.471,475,484-86(1994); Reinboldv.Evers,187F.3d348,355n.7(4thCir.1999).Accordingly,M eyers'allegationsfail to stateaBivensclaim againstthennm ed defendants. Fortheforegoing reasons,the action isdismissed asfriv-o '' fous '''ànd '' ' ma 'li 'c'ious '. ENTER:This YdayofNovember,2018. .'@w r - . . . . . '* . . . 4:' ..,;7...... , y-- . ..f xCh efU'n1t c .l tatesDlstnd Judge ' : ) ) : . ( . .; . y, tt ;ç1 q L )2> .. . . 1% . . .t (j. .
]]>
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.
