Meyers v. United States District Court, Big Stone Gap Division et al, No. 7:2018cv00472 - Document 2 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 11/02/2018. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S,DISX O UR7 AT m O% ,VA FILED Nûy 2 2g1g IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROAN OK E DIVISION Ju c s DK z DA V ID M EY ER S, Plaintiff, CivilActionNo.7:18-cv-00472 V. M EM O M N D U M O PIN IO N UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,BIG STO N E G A P D IVISIO N ,etaI., D efendants. By:M ichaelF.U rbanski ChiefU nited States D istrictJudge ER= David M eyers,aVirginiainm ateproceeding proK ,comm enced thiscivilaction asa Sçpetition forwritofmandnmus.''Plaintiffnamesasdefendantsthree divisionsofthiscourt,the JudicialCouncilCircuitExecutiveofthe Fourth Circuit,and numerousstate oflkials.Plaintiff demandsthatagrandjuryinvestigatestateofficials'allegedmisconduct. Thepetition isdismissed asfrivolousbecausethecourtcnnnotgrantthem andamusrelief Plaintiffseeks.See.e.:.,Neitzkev.W illiams,490U.S.319,328(1989).Thecourtlacks jurisdictiontograntmandnmusreliefagainststateoftkialsorstateagencies.See28U.S.C. j1361;seeee.g.,Gurleyv.SuperiorCt.ofM eclclenbum Cty.,411F.2d586,587(4thCir.1969). Thecourtand thefederaldefendantsdo nothavetheauthority to investigate alleged m isconduct inorderto conveneagrandjury.Seeme.c.,Jettv.Castaneda,578F.2d842,845(9th Cir.1978) (recognizingtheinvestigationofcrimeisprimarily anexecutivefllnction). M oreover,the courtdeclinesto construethepetition asacivilrightsaction tmder42 U.S.C.j1983orBivensv.SixUnknownNnmedAgentsofFed.BureauofNarcotics,403U.S. Meyers v. United States District Court, Big Stone Gap Division et al Doc. 2 388(1971),basedontheliberaluseoflabelsandconclusions,which arenotentitledtoan assumptionoftrtzth. BellAtl.Corp.v.Twomblv,550U.S.544,555(2007).Totheextentsome courtcould construe the repetitive labels and conclusions into an actionable com plaint,itw ould, atbest,besubjecttodismissalwithoutprejudiceasduplicativeoftheclaimsraisedin Meyersv. Dockets.Justia.com U S.PostalService,No.7:18-cv-00929.1 See. e.c.,M cclary v.Searles,&o.3:16-cv-640-FDW , 2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS 187191,at*3,2017W L 6756642,at*2(W .D.N.C.Nov.13,2017) (dismissingaction withoutprejudiceforbeingsubstantiallyduplicativeofclaimsin anearlierfiled j1983casethatwasstillpendinginthatcourt),afpd,717F.App'x 337(4thCir.2018). Fortheforegoing reasons,the action isdismissed asivolousptlrsuanttp 28U .S.C. --. - - .. j 1915A(b)(1). ' ENTER:This V dayofNovember,2 18 . @l # . .. j ' '. . :L .c. 2$l '. . . . Chie @ .'' '. .. * . &....: -- i t ed StatesDiskictJudge 1Thecourtheld ahearing on August16, 2018,concem ing hisoriginalallegation ofimminentdangerin that case.Themagistratejudgehasrecornmendedthatthecourtallow Plaintifftoproceedwithoutprepayingthefiling feetmder28U.S.C.j1915(g)basedonallegationsinthatcaseaboutspecifk ROSP staff'sandinmates'conduct aroundJanuary2018.Meversv.U.S.PostalService,No.7:18-cv-00029(W .D.Va.Oct.9,2018)(Sargent,M .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.
