Dinkins v. Eagles et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert S. Ballou on 8/28/2024. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(skm)


 ,

,$ ,  !,%!,
",!! (
,(,
 ,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION
MELVIN DINKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATHERINE C. EAGLES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

August 28, 2024
%,,% !,,,,,,,,,,,
*, +, ,(
'#,,

Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-62

By: Robert S. Ballou
United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se plaintiff Melvin Dinkins has filed numerous frivolous complaints against
Defendant Region Ten CSB, along with various federal judicial officers of the United States,
prompting this Court to issue a pre-filing injunction (the “pre-filing injunction order”)
prohibiting him from filing a lawsuit in any federal court: (1) against Region Ten CSB; (2)
arising out of the same allegations of any of his previous complaints; or (3) “against any judicial
officer, executive agency or official, lawyer, or witness based on their action or inaction in any
of his previous cases.” See Case No. 3:22-cv-73; Dkt. 22, p. 13. The pre-filing injunction order
provides that Dinkins may seek leave of court to file a new lawsuit by filing a motion in the
previous case, No. 3:22-cv-73, demonstrating that the proposed filing (1) can survive a challenge
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12; (2) is not barred by principles of issue or claim
preclusion; (3) is not repetitive or violative of a court order; (4) does not sue an immune
defendant; and (5) complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The pre-filing injunction
directs the Clerk of Court to strike any pleadings in violation of the order. Id. at p. 18.
Dinkins filed the instant complaint in the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, and the United States of America properly removed the case to federal court as it
names an agency of the United States and officers of the courts of the United States as

defendants. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1), (3). The complaint violates the prefiling injunction
order on several grounds, as it lists as defendants two federal judges (including the Honorable
Catherine C. Eagles who issued the pre-filing injunction order), the Department of Justice, and
Region Ten CSB, and it appears to raise the same allegations as his many previous filings
relating to alleged government benefit fraud, false claims, and personal injuries. Dkt. 1-1.
Dinkins filed the complaint in state court, rather than federal court; however, the case has now
properly been removed to federal court. Accordingly, I find that the complaint violates the prefiling injunction order and should be stricken.
Additionally, construing the complaint as a motion for leave to file consistent with the
terms of the pre-filing injunction, it does not meet the required factors set forth in the pre-filing
injunction order. Specifically, the complaint is repetitive and violative of a court order, it sues
immune defendants, and it cannot survive a challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.
Dinkins’ complaint attempts to sue two federal judges who are protected by judicial
immunity in their official and individual capacities. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9–11
(1991) (per curiam). The matters raised in the complaint are almost identical to the issues
asserted in the eight prior complaints that have been dismissed by this court. See Case No. 3:22cv-73, Dkt. 22 (describing Dinkins’ prior filings in detail). Dinkins seeks relief for “personal
injuries” resulting from “Organized Interstate Fraud and Malfeasance,” (Dkt. 1-1, p. 1), and
appears to contest billing statements and account transactions but provides no facts or other
information from which the court can make sense of the allegations. The complaint makes vague
and obscure references to things like “Federal finance violations,” “false billing,” and
“discrepancies,” is generally incomprehensible and does not “contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its fact.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US.

2

662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). For these same reasons, Dinkins’ claims are legally frivolous and
should be dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and the pre-filing injunction order entered in Case. No. 3:22-cv-73, and this matter
is STRICKEN from the docket of this court. An appropriate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
Entered: August 2, 2024

Robert S. Ballou
Robert S. Ballou
United States District Judge

3