Meyers v. U.S. District Court, Roanoke Division et al, No. 7:2018cv00474 - 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,DISI COURT AT U NOV ,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDlsTm c' rcocR'r FO R T H E w ESTERN D lsTm c'r o F V IR G INIA R O AN O K E DIV ISIO N N0k û 2213 J BY; ', , = U i, C URK .4 D AV ID M EYER S, Plaintiff, C ivilA ction N o.7:18-cv-0047 v. M EM O R AN D UM O PIN IO N U .S.DIST RICT C O UR T,R O A NO K E D IV ISIO N ,etaI., D efendants. By:M ichaelF.U rbanski C hiefU nited States D istrictJudge K DavidM eyers,aVirginiainm ateproceeding proK ,comm enced thiscivilaction asa tGpetition forwritofm andnmus.''Plaintiffnam esasdefendantstheG&U.S.DistdctCourt,Roanoke Division''and Harold Clarke,theDirectoroftheVirgirliaDepartm entofCorrections. Plaintiffis upsetabouthow ajudgeofthiscourthasnzledadversely onhismotionsandcases,theconductof correctionalandmedicalstaffatRedOnionStatePrison(1çROSP'')in2017andthesummerof 2018,theavailability ofadm inistrativeremediesatROSP,and otherinmates'threatsofharm. As relief,Plaintiffasksthe courtto orderstate officialsto deliverhim beforeafederalm agistrate judgetotslecriminalcharges,toprocesshisgrievanceforms,andtorendertmspecifiedmedical treatm ent. The petition is dism issed asfrivolousbecause the courtcnnnotgrantthe m andam usrelief Plaintiffseeks.Seese.:.,Neitzkev.W illiams,490U.S.319,328(1989).Thecourtlacks jurisdictiontograntmandamusreliefagainststateofficialsorstateagencies.See28U.S.C. j 1361;see.e.:.,Gtlrleyv.SuperiorCt.ofM ecklenbtux Cty.,411F.2d 586,587(4thCir.1969). Meyers v. U.S. District Court, Roanoke Division et al Doc. 2 The courtdoes nothave the authority to investigate alleged cdm inalactivity. See.e.g.,Jettv. Castaneda,578F.2d842,845(9thCir.1978)(recognizingtheinvestigationofcrimeispdmarily anexecutivefunction). Dockets.Justia.com M oreover,thecourtdeclinesto construethepetition asa civilrightsaction under42 U.S.C.j1983orBivensv.Six UnknownNnmedAgentsofFed.BureauofNarcotics,403U.S. 388(1971),asitfailstostateacognizablefederalclaim againstthennmeddefendants.Tostatea claim forrelieftmderj 1983orBivens,aplaintiffmustallegefactsindicatingthathehasbeen deprived ofrightsguaranteed by theConstitution orlawsoftheUnited Statesandthatthis deplivation resulted from conductcom mittedby aperson acting undercoloroflaw. W estv. Atkins,487U.S.42(1988);seeFarmerv.Brerman,511U.S.825,839-41(1994)(indicatingthat caselaw involvingj 1983claimsisapplicableinBivensactionsandviceversa).First,theUrlited StatesDistrictCourtisnotaStperson''subjecttosuitinacivilrightsaction.Fixelv.Urlited States,737F.Supp.593,598(D.Nev.1990).Second,M eyers'petitionallegesnofactsagainst orconductcommittedbyHaroldClarke,and supervisoryliabilitytmderj1983maynotbe predicated on thetheory ofrespondeatsuperior. M onellv.Dep'tofSoc.Servs.,436 U.S.658, 663n.7,691-94 (1978);Baynardv.M alone,268F.3d228,235(4thCir.2001).Accordingly, M eyers'allegationsfailto stateacivilrightsclaim againstthennm ed defendants. ' Fortheforegoingreaso s,thecourtdismissestheactionasfrivotous.l ENTER :This W *' dayofNovember, 2018. '. . y I . .. .. . * .. ,.@ 't . ' Jî 7 .' .. ' 7 4'.ç' .j! pf .ii r.)1 . à..V.: 1. . a-$ .....-'.'''''*'hY' .:1. r'. l!.I.* ; .' .4' 'C '- nted ate-sDistrictJudje -' - 1Thecourtnotes, however,thatthisdismissaldoesnotimpactM eyers'abilityto fileacivilrightsaction basedoncertainclaimsinhispetitionandagainstappropriatedefendants,subjecttotheprovisionsofthePrison LitigationRefonn A ct. -:
]]>
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.
