Church v. Director, Virginia Dept. Corrections et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 08/16/2017. Copy mailed to Petitioner as directed.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
WILLIAM L.A. CHURCH,
Petitioner,

v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPT.,
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

AUG l 6 2017
CLERK, U.S. DiSTrltCT COURl
RICHMOND, VA

Civil Action No. 3:16CV845-HEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing Frivolous Action)
William L.A. Church, a Virginia inmate currently confined in Oklahoma, filed this
this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is before the Court for evaluation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The latter statute requires the
Court to "dismiss any action brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983
of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
correctional facility if the court is satisfied that the action is frivolous .... " 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(c)(l). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires the Court to review "a
complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity
or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and "dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint" that "is frivolous ... or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(l). The mandatory review under the~e
statutes applies even if the plaintiff has paid the full filing fee. See Johnson v. Hill, 965
F. Supp. 1487, 1488 (E.D. Va. 1997).

I. Standard of Review
The frivolous standard includes claims based upon "an indisputably meritless legal
theory," or claims where the "factual contentions are clearly baseless." Clay v. Yates,
809 F. Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Va. 1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327
(1989)). This latter category encompasses "allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and
delusional. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether
or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 {1992) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)

(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328). Furthermore, when assessing frivolity, "a
litigant's history of bringing unmeritorious litigation can be considered." Bilal v. Driver,
251 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles
Bd., 915 F .2d 636, 641 (11th Cir. 1990); Harris v. Menendez, 817 F .2d 737, 741 (11th

Cir. 1987)).
As explained below, Church's claims are frivolous. It is both unnecessary and
inappropriate to engage in an extended discussion of the utter lack of merit of Church's
theories for relief. See Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996)
(emphasizing that "abbreviated treatment" is consistent with Congress's vision for the
disposition of frivolous or "insubstantial claims" (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 324 (1989))).

2

II. Church's Past and Current Litigation
Church is serving consecutive sentences of twenty-five years and life for his
convictions of sodomy and rape in the Circuit Court of Amelia County, Virginia. See
Church v. Okla. Corr'/ Indus., No. CIV-10-1111-R, 2011WL4376222, at* 1 (W.D.

Okla. Aug. 15, 2011 ). Church has a long history of filing frivolous actions involving
"false tales of service for various military and governmental agencies and conspiracies to
detain him in prison." Church v. U.S. Gov 't, No. 3 :07CV129-HEH, 2008 WL 5704482,
at *2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2008) (citing cases). As background, the basis of his many
actions stem from a theory that "he is wrongly incarcerated as a result of a government
conspiracy" wherein the government picked him up, trained him, and "replaced him with
a 'body double' who he refers to as 'Big Church."' Id. Church then "alleges that Big
Church committed various crimes throughout the United States and these crimes were
blamed on the real Church." Id.; see also Church, 2011 WL 4376222, at *3 (explaining
that Church claims "he is being wrongfully incarcerated due to mistaken identity" and
"he is not the William Church guilty of the Virginia convictions").

Church's current

Particularized Complaint continues to raise his "incredible claims of byzantine
conspiracy theories and government manipulations." Church, 2008 WL 5704482, at *2
(citing Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994); McKee v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, No. 3:03-CV-01025-RL W, 2004 WL 3488635at*1 (E.D. Va. May 25, 2004)).

Church alleges, in part:
FBI, CIA informants went bad! Rouged! They infiltrated hordes of
clubs . . . . These informants committed crimes all over the South. They
used my name and social security number ....
3

From the aforesaid, 1982 the Russian informant under the name of
William L. Church ... married my girlfriend Carolyn Robbins in Chester Chesterfield, VA who was pregnant with my son Travis. Church tried to
kill her and tried to kill her family! Carolyn listed him as the father of
Travis which he is not. He is listed from Tennessee. I am from
. I
Georg1a .....
The William L Church informant, one of them, was convicted in
Amelia County, Va. of rape - sodomy 1984.... The informant originally
charged is not the same person who was tried. . . . Mug shots and
descriptions prove this! Which is part of this action! ....
1993 VA DOC was initiating an interstate compact of their VA DOC
William L. Church, VA DOC# 139047. Jan. 1994, the first VA DOC
#139047 inmate arrived in Okla. DOC receiving where he set until Jan.
1995 where the 2nd VA DOC #139047 inmate arrived in Okla. DOC.
Receiving whom was sent to Okla. OSP McAlester, OK where he set until I
arrived. Jan. 1996 I was picked up on base at Ft. Bragg, NC and sent
straight to OSP and issued DOC #93904 7. The aforesaid other two
informants have not been seen since!
(Part. Compl. 3-5, ECF No. 8.) 1 Church continues to ramble on for pages about the
difficulties these doppelgangers have caused him with his parole and his placement in the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Any legal claims are inextricably intertwined with
Church's fantastic complaints about body-doubles and infonnants. Accordingly, the
action will be dismissed as frivolous.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date:

Isl
Henry E. Hudson
United States District Judge

A1 l-S20l'l

Richmon~ Vuginia
1

When possible, the Court corrects the capitalization, punctuation, and spelling in the quotations
from Church's Particularized Complaint. The Court omits the emphasis from the quotations
from the Particularized Complaint.
4