United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Meyers, Pro Se Plaintiff.
P. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, David Meyers, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
has filed a civil rights action against state and federal
officials. He has also requested to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), which
allows a prisoner to pay filing costs in installments. Upon
review of public court records and Meyers' recent
submissions, I have concluded that this action must be
summarily dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, all prisoner
litigants filing federal civil actions must pay filing fees
in full, either through prepayment or through installments.
§ 1915(b). Section 1915(g) denies the installment
payment method of IFP to prisoners who have “three
strikes” -- those prisoners who have had three or more
previous cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious,
or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted - unless the inmate shows “imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).
has brought such actions or appeals on three or more prior
occasions: Meyers v. United States District Court,
No. 2:07-cv-00363 (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2007); Meyers v. City
of Petersburg, No. 2:03-cv-00248 (E.D. Va. Apr. 11,
2003); Myers v. Bass, No. 2:95-cv-00774 (E.D. Va.
Aug. 15, 1995). See also Meyers v. Virginia State
Bar, No. 08-6849 (4th Cir. July 10, 2008) (unpublished)
(finding that the three listed dismissals are strikes under
§ 1915(g) and denying Meyers' motion to proceed
without prepayment of appeal fees on that ground).
Accordingly, Meyers may proceed with this case only if (a) he
prepays the $400 filing costs for a civil action in this
court, or (b) he shows that he is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury. § 1915(g).
imminent danger ‘“exception focuses on the risk
that the conduct complained of threatens continuing or future
injury, not whether the inmate deserves a remedy for past
misconduct.”' Johnson v. Warner, 200
Fed.Appx. 270, 272 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Martin v.
Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003)). Courts
have also held that the “imminent danger”
exception to § 1915(g)'s three strikes rule must be
construed narrowly and applied only “for genuine
emergencies, ” where “time is pressing” and
“a threat . . . is real and proximate” to the
alleged official misconduct. Lewis v. Sullivan, 279
F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).
Vague, speculative, or conclusory allegations are
insufficient to invoke the exception of § 1915(g);
rather, the inmate must make “specific fact allegations
of ongoing serious physical injury, or of a pattern of
misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious
Johnson, 200 Fed.Appx. at 272 (quoting
Martin, 319 F.3d at 1050).
construed, Meyers' Complaint in this case alleges the
1. Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”)
Director Harold Clarke “is sanctioning and allowing
sexual abuses, retaliations, attempted murders by
staff/inmates on [Meyers].” Compl. 2, ECF No. 1.
2. Officials at Red Onion State Prison (“Red
Onion”) have been tampering with Meyers' legal
3. On July 9, 2016, Dr. Wang at Green Rock Correctional
Center “sodomized” Meyers by performing a rectal
examination without his consent, and other prison staff
denied that the event occurred to avoid civil liability.
4. Red Onion staff refused to provide Meyers with financial
5. After Meyers arrived at Pocahontas Correctional Center on
December 9, 2016, and told officials that he had an enemy
among the inmates there, officers dragged him 300 yards,
“threw [him] into concrete head first injuring [his]
neck and head, ” and then ...