United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
K. MOON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before me are the six civil complaints listed above, all of
which were brought by the same plaintiff, David Meyers, and
assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. All have been assigned to me. Although
they are not identical, they have overlapping or intertwined
allegations and many of the same defendants.
is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), having had
at least three cases dismissed as frivolous before each of
these cases was filed. See, e.g., Meyers v.
Jones, No. 7:18cv414 (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2018) (dismissed
with prejudice as frivolous and malicious); Meyers v.
Clarke, No. 7:18cv460 (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2018) (dismissed
with prejudice as frivolous and malicious); Meyers v.
U.S. District Court, Big Stone Gap Division, No.
7:18cv472 (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2018) (dismissed with prejudice
as frivolous); Meyers v. Northam, No. 7:18cv473
(W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2018) (dismissed with prejudice as
frivolous); Meyers v. U.S. District Court, Roanoke
Division, No. 7:18cv474 (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2018)
(dismissed with prejudice as frivolous); Meyers v.
Clarke, No. 7:18cv435 (W.D. Va. Sept. 7, 2018)
(dismissed with prejudice as frivolous); Meyers v. United
States District Court Richmond Division, No. 2:07cv363
(E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2007) (dismissed with prejudice for failing
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and as
frivolous); Meyers v. Bass, No. 2:95cv774 (E.D. Va.
Aug. 15, 1995) (dismissed without prejudice as frivolous).
See also McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399
(4th Cir. 2009) (noting dismissals without prejudice for
frivolousness should not be exempted from 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g)). Accordingly, Meyers cannot proceed with this action
unless he prepays the filing fee or demonstrates that he is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Meyers has not prepaid the filing fee and,
thus, I must determine whether he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
interest of judicial efficiency, to conserve the resources of
the parties and the court, and for the reasons discussed
below, I conclude that, as to five of these cases, they
should be referred to United States Magistrate Judge Hoppe
for a consolidated hearing on the imminent danger inquiry.
That referral will occur in the following cases: Meyers
v. Hall, No. 7:19cv250, Meyers v. Manis, No.
7:19cv406, Meyers v. Manis, No. 7:19cv496,
Meyers v. Manis, No. 7:19cv558, and Meyers v.
Ely, No. 7:19cv605. With regard to the other
case-Meyers v. Lew, No. 7:18cv603-Meyers cannot show
imminent danger and thus his request to proceed in forma
pauperis will be denied and that case dismissed.
to the extent that these cases name judges of this court, the
clerk of court, or deputy clerks of this court as defendants,
those defendants are immune for the actions alleged by
Meyers, and the claims against them will be dismissed as
order to understand these rulings, it is helpful to have some
background about now-resolved cases in which Meyers made
similar or identical allegations of imminent harm, as well as
a basic overview of the allegations in Meyers'
times pertinent to these complaints, Meyers was an inmate
either at Red Onion State Prison (“ROSP”) or at
Wallens Ridge State Prison (“WRSP”), where he is
currently housed. According to Meyers' sworn testimony at
evidentiary hearings held in December 2018 and February 2019,
never came out of his ROSP cell B-410 from September 26, 2018
until his transfer to WRSP on November 20, 2018.
Additionally, from the time he was at WRSP through at least
February 22, 2019, he testified that he was in a single cell
for 24 hours a day with no direct contact with any other
inmates or correctional officers. (Report 3-4, No. 7:18cv485,
Dkt. No. 109.) Based on these facts, another judge of this
court previously found that Meyers was protected from all
other inmates and ROSP staff at the time he filed his
complaints in two prior cases, and so he had not shown he was
in imminent danger. Because he was not under imminent danger
of serious physical injury, he could not proceed in forma
pauperis. Because he had not paid the filing fee, then,
the cases were dismissed. (No. 7:18cv485, Dkt. No. 141; No.
7:19cv3, Dkt. No. 53)
the dates of his transfer to the filing dates of the
complaints before me, only one of his complaints was filed
while he was still at ROSP: Meyers v. Lew, No.
7:18cv603 (filed October 11, 2018). The remainder were filed
after he was transferred to
WRSP. All of those filed after his transfer
refer to incidents at WRSP at least in conclusory terms, such
as that unidentified WRSP inmates are trying to murder him.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN CASES
providing a brief overview of the claims in each case, I do
not list the specific defendants for every claim in every
case, but I note that there is some significant overlap of
defendants between the cases. By way of example only, No.
7:19cv406 identifies seventy-five different defendants. No.
7:19cv558 names approximately thirty-four of those same
defendants, but also includes an additional thirty-six
Meyers v. Hall, No. 7:19cv250, filed March 21,
complaint in this case names as defendants five judges of
this court and approximately eighteen other individuals, all
employed by the Virginia Department of Corrections
(“VDOC”). The VDOC employees are employed at the
central office, ROSP, or WRSP. As is typical with his
filings, Meyers' complaint groups together numerous
claims and dates and it is not always clear what is being
alleged against who. Many of his claims are related to his
housing assignments and custody status, and he frequently
alleges that inmates and/or correctional officers are trying
to murder him and/or failing to protect him.
claims in this action are numbered, although many of the
numbered claims contain multiple allegations. Also, there is
significant overlap between the claims. Nonetheless, this
case gives a good overall sense of the claims and types of
claims he is asserting in all of these cases. His claims are:
1a. Defendants tried to force him into general population on
an unknown date, when he was supposed to be in protective
1b. On February 14 and 15, 2019, the evening pill nurse took
his glasses to repair them, refused to repair them, and tried
to give him another inmate's glasses. This caused him to
fall on February 15, hitting his head on a sink.
2. Thereafter, the nurses refused to treat his head injury
and it has caused him “severe pain.” He asserts
that his eyeglasses were taken to prevent him from seeing and
representing himself in civil actions before this court.
(Compl. 3, Dkt. No. 1.)
3a. Certain defendants are embezzling funds from his
3b. Other defendants read his legal documents and ransacked
his cell. The ransacking of his cell led him to fall and hit
his head on the toilet from property they piled in the center
of his cell floor.
4. On March 6, 2019, judges of this court-by refusing his
requests for injunctive relief-and other defendants tried to
force him to go to general population, where gang member
inmates could attack and murder him. Other officers refused
to sign his emergency grievance where he was challenging the
order to go to general population. Other officers stole
property from him and did not give him full meals and
retaliated against him by filing disciplinary reports. His
due process rights were also violated.
5a. In addition to retaliating by filing disciplinary offense
reports for his refusal to go to general population,
defendants retaliated for Meyers' filing of civil actions
and his testifying against them regarding being forced to
eat, drink, and ingest hazardous toxic paint mixed with mold,
e-coli, and cobalt.
5b. Certain defendants tried to incite hundreds of inmates to
murder him by giving them unsealed copies of his civil
actions in which he ...