Meyers v. Sargent et al, No. 7:2019cv00002 - Document 8 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 6/3/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ctlRrs oFFlcq U,S.Dlsm O URT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED JLN 23 2212 IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT JULI A . E$Y; FOR THE W ESTERN DISTW CT OF W RGJNIA , RO AN OK E DW ISIO N DA VID M EY ER S, Plaintiff, C AR T,M AN IS,etaI., D efendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CivilAction No.7:19cv00002 M EM OIG NDUM OPINION By:M ichaelF.Urbanski ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge PlaintiffD avid M eyers,a V irginiaprisonerproceeding pro K ,Gled thiscivilrights action pursuantto42 U.S.C.j 1983,whilehousedatW allensRidgeStatePrisonandonthesameday that he filed Civil A ction N o. 7:19cv00003. M eyers requests to proceed i , q fol' m a pauperis. . However,at leastthree ofM eyers'previousactionsorappeals have been dism issed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief m ay be granted.1 Therefore,M eyers m ay not proceed w ith this action unless he eitherpays the filing fee orshow sthathe is (çunder im m inent dangerofseriousphysicalinjury.''28U.S.C.j1915(g). As M eyershasneitherprepaid the tsling fee nordem onstrated thathe isûtunderim m inent dangerofseriousphysicalinjury,''2thecourtdismisseshiscomplaintwithoutprejudicepursuant to28U.S.C.j1915(g). 1See. e. a.,Meyersv.Jones,7:18cv414(W.D.Va.Nov.2,2012)(dismissedwithprejudiceasfrivolousand Meyers v. Sargent et al maliciousl;Meyersv.Clarke,7:18cv460 (W .D.Va.Nov.2,2012)(dismissed with prejudice asfrivolousand malioious);Meyersv.U.S.DistrictCourtsBicStoneGanDivision.7:18cv472(W . D.Va.Nov.2,2018)(dismissed withprejudiceasfrivolous);Meyersv.Northam.7:12cv473(W.D.Va.Nov.2,2012)(dismissedwithprejudiceas frivolous);Meversv.U.S.DistrictCourt.RoanokeDivision,7:18cv474(W.D.Va.Nov.2,2018)(dismissedwith prejudiceasfrivolous);Meversv.Clarke,No.7:18cv435(W.D.Va..sept.7,2012)(dismissedwith prejudiceas frivolous);Meyersv.Bass,No.2:95cv774 (E.D.Va.Aug.15,1995)(dismissedwithoutprejudiceasfrivolous); Meyersv.U.S.DistrictCourt-Richmond Division,No.2:07cv363 (E.D.Va.Nov.1,2007)(dismissed with prejudiceforfailingtostateaclaim);seealsoColemanv.Tollefson.135S.Ct.1759,1763(2015)(holdingthata Rstrike''dismissaliscountedregardlesstothetimingofasubsequentappeal). Doc. 8 2Theallegationsin thiscase largely repeatallegations made in CivilAction No. 7:19cv00003.In thatcase, the coul' theld an evidentiary hearing concerning whetherM eyers was under im minent dangerof serious physical injury atthe timehe filed hiscomplaintand,ultimately,determinedthathewasnot. Asin CivilAction No. 7:19cv00003,Meyershasfailedtodemonstratethathewasunderimminentdangerofseriousphysicalinjurywhen hefiledthisactionbecause hisallegationseitherdonotallegedangerpob sed by the defendants'alleged actions;are too vague,speculativeorconclusory;arefanciful;havenom erit;orwerealreadydeterminedto benotcredible.See CivilAction No.7:19cv00003;see also Sorineerv.Dav,No.7:16cv261,2016 U.S.Dist.LEM S 76270,at*3,2016 Dockets.Justia.com ENTER:Thiszr4$ayof ,2019. 5 / ez,W c.//. ChiefU nited t wf istrictJudge WL 3248601,at#1(W.D.Va.June 13,2016)(quoting Lewisv.Sullivan,279F.3d 526,531(7thCir.2002)) Ccoul'ts have held thatthe imminentdangerexception to j1915(g)'s Sthree strikes'rule mustbe construed narrowly and applied only for çgenuine em vrgencies,' where 'time is pressing' and $a threat .. . is real and proximate'tothealleged officialmisconduct.'')
]]>
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.
