United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
K. MOON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Meyers, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
commenced this civil action as a “petition for writ of
mandamus.” Meyers names as respondents the
“Roanoke U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney [for the Western
District of Virginia] Thomas T. Cullen, FBI Richmond-Roanoke
Field Office, and the Roanoke United States Marshal
Service.” Because he did not allege facts that those
defendants violated a duty owed to him, as opposed
to a failure to perform a discretionary function, I dismissed
the lawsuit as frivolous in an opinion and order entered
August 26, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.)
same order, I directed Meyers to show cause, if there be any,
as to why a pre-filing injunction should not issue against
him. (Id.) He has now responded to the show-cause
order. (Dkt. No. 8.) In his response, he does not set forth
any valid reason why the pre-filing injunction I proposed
should not enter. Instead, and for the reasons discussed
below, I conclude that a pre-filing injunction against Meyers
is proper and appropriate and I will enter one.
noted in the order to show cause, Meyers has filed at least
thirty-five civil cases in this court, with approximately
two-thirds of those in the past year, and most of those cases
allege facts that are duplicative of and/or substantially
intertwined with those of other cases. Meyers is also a
three-striker and has had many cases, like this one,
dismissed as frivolous and/or malicious. In addition to
filing new cases, Meyers continues to file motions and other
documents in his closed civil cases; in some cases he
continues to file documents more than two years after the
case has closed. See, e.g., Meyers v.
Clarke, No. 7:16cv573; and Meyers v. U.S. Attorney
General, No. 7:17cv75. Further, many of the documents
filed by Meyers include the case numbers of almost all the
cases he has filed in this court. See, e.g.,
Meyers v. Clarke, No. 7:16cv573, Dkt. No. 62;
Meyers v. Jones, No. 7:18cv414, Dkt. No. 19;
Meyers v. Clarke, No. 7:18cv460, Dkt. No.
10. And many of his documents contain
scandalous, vulgar, obscene, threatening, or vituperative
language or allegations. See, e.g., Meyers v.
Kiser, No. 7:18cv485, Dkt. Nos. 34, 41, 44, 50, 54, 57,
60, 64, 83, 89, 90, 95, 100, 106, 108, 111, 114, 115, 120,
121, 122, 131, 132, 136, 142, 143, and 148. Meyers also has
filed appeals in many of his cases and often files more than
one appeal in the same case. See, e.g.,
id., Dkt. Nos. 91, 122, and 153.
memorandum opinion and order entered November 2, 2018, Chief
Judge Urbanski of this court warned Meyers that he does not
have an absolute and unconditional right of access to courts
to prosecute frivolous, malicious, abusive, or vexatious
motions or actions, advised him of the court's intention
to enter a pre-filing injunction against him, and gave him
the opportunity to file any opposing argument. See Meyers
v. Jones, No. 7:18cv414, Dkt. Nos. 3 and 4. Meyers filed
objections, see Id. at Dkt. Nos. 5 and 9, and he
also has filed more than a dozen cases since that warning
his objections to Chief Judge Urbanski's warning were
largely incomprehensible, it appears that Meyers attempted to
argue that a pre-filing injunction should not be imposed
because he is under imminent danger of serious physical harm.
Id. However, in other cases, the court has had
multiple hearings regarding whether Meyers is in imminent
danger of serious physical harm, see Meyers v.
Kiser, No. 7:18cv485, Dkt. Nos. 30 and 103, and has
dismissed several cases after finding that he is not in
imminent danger of serious physical harm. See e.g.,
id., Dkt. No. 141; Meyers v. Dye, No.
7:18cv557; Meyers v. Jones, No. 7:18cv598;
Meyers v. Manis, No. 7:19cv2; and Meyers v.
Flemmings, No. 7:19cv174. Moreover, some cases he files
are frivolous and subject to dismissal even if they also
allege that he is in imminent danger of serious physical
harm. For example, his request for mandamus in this case is
frivolous regardless of whether he is in imminent danger of
serious physical harm.
event, the order being entered will not prohibit Meyers from
getting his claims before the court in the event that he is
in imminent danger of serious physical harm if he otherwise
abides by the filing requirements the order imposes.
Accordingly, I find no merit in that objection.
Judge Urbanski gave Meyers a second warning on March 29,
2019. See Meyers v. Kiser, No. 7:18cv485, Dkt. No.
116. In the second warning, Chief Judge Urbanski struck
obscene language and scandalous allegations from Meyers'
filing and warned him that future pleadings containing
similar vile and obscene language would be stricken by the
court and would subject Meyers to additional and more severe
sanctions, up to and including potential dismissal in the
entirety of the applicable pending action. Id.
Despite the second warning, Meyers continued to file
documents containing scandalous, vulgar, obscene,
threatening, or vituperative language or allegations.
See, e.g., id., Dkt. Nos. 120, 121, 122,
131, 132, 136, 142, 143, and 148.
noted, Meyers received additional notice of the possibility
of a pre-filing injunction from my August 26, 2019 opinion
and order. That order to show cause highlighted some of the
same abuses that are detailed above.
response to the show-cause order, Meyers has filed a
six-page, handwritten response, most of which is not directed
to actually responding to the show cause order. In it, he
emphasizes that he is in danger, a fact that has no bearing
on, and cannot save from dismissal as frivolous, his mandamus
petition in this case. (Response to Show Cause at 1-2, 6.) He
also references subsequent alleged abuses by VDOC officers,
both against him and against his “witness, ”
Christopher Dammones. Again, to the extent he is claiming
that the imminent danger he faces should prevent a pre-filing
injunction, I disagree. As noted above, the order I am
entering is sufficiently narrow such that it will not
prohibit Meyers from getting his claims before the court in
the event that he is in imminent danger of serious physical
harm if he otherwise abides by the filing requirements.
Accordingly, there is no merit in that objection.
also requests that the court vacate his order of dismissal,
but provides no valid basis for reconsideration. Thus, to the
extent his response is construed as a motion to reconsider,
it is DENIED.
response then accuses me, other judges of this court, the
Clerk of court, and/or other judicial employees of
“manifest injustice, ” (Response to Show Cause
Order at 2), of attempting to murder him (id. at 3),
of dismissing his lawsuits as retaliation (id.), of
encouraging VDOC employees to “commit . . .
recreation[al] murders and corporal punishment torture,
” and of harboring “racial discrimination, racial
[animosity] and sympathizing with the white nationalists cult
terrorist movements, ” and of having “deep-seated
racial hatred” for him, as a “non-white.”
He complains that he has had cases dismissed and that the
judges of this court have used “fraud and
perjury” to dismiss his cases, when they were not
frivolous. He also claims that my prior order was a threat to
rob him of his civil and constitutional rights,
“because it y'all ‘white oppression plan'
to racially de-right me, to gain rank in y'all white
nationalist cult terrorist movement to kill me, other blacks
and minorities.” (Id. at 5.) Similarly, he
accuses me- apparently because I dismissed as frivolous his
writ of mandamus in this case-of “knowingly violating
the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ” [and]
“committing treason and sedition.” (Id.
response does not include any factual support for these
allegations, and there is no basis for them. Simply accusing
judges and court staff of racial discrimination or treason
does not make those allegations true or founded. Instead, his
repeated allegations are simply further evidence of his
pattern of abusive filings and highlight the need for the
his response does suggest explanations for some of the
formatting problems that were noted in the show-cause order.
For example, he asserts that he has a number of mental
disorders, (id. at 4 (referencing his diagnoses of
“schizophrenia Type 1, delusional disorder, bipolar
disorder, manic depressive disorder, and antisocial
personality disorder”)), and that VDOC officials or
correctional officers have denied him proper mental health
services. He claims that these mental disorders, as well as
his physical disabilities (bullets lodged in his finger
joints and his blindness/visual impairments) affect his
penmanship. He claims that VDOC officers have failed to
provide him with proper mental health services and Braille
stationary to assist him in not writing all over the page.
But the primary problem is not with Meyers' penmanship;
overall, his writing is fairly legible. Indeed, if the
only problem ...