Taylor v. Wilson

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 9/17/12. (kld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
HARRISONBURG DIVISION
WARREN SCOTT TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS J. WILSON, IV,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-00092

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By:

Hon. Michael F. Urbanski
United States District Judge

Warren Scott Taylor filed a pro se Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, to recover damages against
Thomas J. Wilson, IV, Judge of the Page County Circuit Court. Plaintiff demands damages
because Judge Wilson denied plaintiff’s petition for a writ of coram vobis to vacate a 1995
driving under the influence (“DUI”) conviction on March 10, 2009. Plaintiff argues that Judge
Wilson was required to vacate the DUI conviction because an accompanying “refusal to take a
breathalyzer” charge was nol prossed in 1995.1
This frivolous action is immediately dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (defining a frivolous claim as based upon,
inter alia, an indisputably meritless legal theory). Judge Wilson is “absolutely immune from a
claim for damages arising out of his judicial actions.” Chu v. Griffith, 771 F.2d 79, 81 (4th Cir.
1985) (citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335 (1872)). Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (stating
injunctive relief against a judicial officer for a judicial act or omission is not permissible unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable). Moreover, plaintiff filed
the action on August 30, 2012, more than two years after the alleged deprivation occurred on
1

Plaintiff’s allegations about his DUI convictions in 1995 and 2001 are described in greater detail in plaintiff’s
earlier habeas petitions and civil rights actions against various defendants. See infra p. 2 (listing all of plaintiff’s
prior civil actions about the DUI convictions). The court will not again recite these facts because they are not
pertinent to the disposition of this case and only further burden the court.

March 10, 2009, and thus, the action is untimely filed. See VA. CODE ANN. § 8.01-243(A)
(setting two year statute of limitations for personal injury action); Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235,
249-50 (1989) (holding a § 1983 action relies on the statute of limitations that the forum state
uses for general personal injury cases). Although the court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, the court dismisses this action as frivolous and certifies that an appeal of the
accompanying Order is not taken in good faith.
The court takes judicial notice of plaintiff’s numerous meritless actions about his DUI
convictions in 1995 and 2001.2 See Taylor v. McDonnell, No. 5:12-cv-00006 (W.D. Va. Feb.
15, 2012) (Urbanski, J.) (dismissing a § 1983 action against the Governor of Virginia for denying
clemency as meritless and barred by res judicata); Taylor v. McDonnell, No. 5:11-cv-00097
(W.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2011) (Urbanski, J.) (dismissing a § 1983 action against the Governor of
Virginia for denying clemency as meritless); Taylor v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 5:09-cv00098 (W.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2009) (Wilson, J.) (dismissing a petition for a writ of coram vobis for
failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Taylor v. Page Cnty. District Court,
No. 5:08-cv-00033 (W.D. Va. Apr. 14. 2008) (Wilson, J.) (dismissing a § 1983 action for failing
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Taylor v. McGrath, No. 7:04-cv-00536 (W.D.
Va. Sept. 14, 2004) (Turk, J.) (dismissing a § 1983 action against plaintiff’s former defense

2

The court notes that plaintiff has had no better success with meritless actions about other state court convictions.
See Taylor v. Hennig, No. 5:12-cv-00010 (W.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2012) (Urbanski, J.) (adopting a Report and
Recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 Complaint for failing to state a claim against Virginia’s Director of
Clemency, who did not approve plaintiff’s clemency application for a 1999 conviction for telephone harassment);
Taylor v. Presgraves, No. 7:04-cv-00426 (W.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2004) (Turk, J.) (dismissing a § 2254 habeas petition
challenging a 1998 conviction for “threatening to commit violence or injury against property or person” as, inter
alia, untimely filed); Taylor v. Hennessey, No. 7:04-cv-00498 (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2004) (Turk, J.) (dismissing a
§ 1983 action for failing to state a claim against the Page County Commonwealth Attorney about plaintiff’s 1998
conviction for “threatening to commit violence or injury against property or person”); Taylor v. Shenk, No. 7:02-cv00760 (W.D. Va. Jun. 21, 2002) (Turk, J.) (dismissing a § 2254 habeas petition challenging a state magistrate’s 1998
order that Taylor stay away from a woman).

2

counsel for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Taylor v. McGrath, No.
7:04-cv-00499 (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2004) (Turk, J.) (dismissing a § 1983 action for seeking
habeas relief and declining to construe the Complaint as a successive habeas petition); Taylor v.
Presgraves, No. 7:04-cv-00448 (W.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2004) (Turk, J.) (dismissing a successive
§ 2254 habeas petition); Taylor v. Warden, No. 7:02-cv-00594 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2002) (Turk,
J.) (dismissing a successive § 2254 habeas petition); Taylor v. Page and Shenandoah Cnty.
Sheriffs, No. 7:02-cv-00119 (W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2002) (Turk, J.) (dismissing a successive § 2254
habeas petition); Taylor v. Brown, No. 7:01-cv-00912 (W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2002) (dismissing
construed § 2254 habeas claims as unexhausted and untimely and dismissing construed § 1983
civil rights claims for seeking relief against immune state officials).
“Plaintiff has no absolute, unconditional right of access to the courts and no constitutional
right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions.” DePineda v. Hemphill, 34 F.3d 946,
948 (10th Cir. 1994). “Undoubtedly, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) . . ., grants federal
courts the authority to limit access to the courts by vexatious and repetitive litigants” who file
“meritless and repetitive actions.” Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th
Cir. 2004). However, the court “must afford a litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard”
before issuing a prefiling injunction. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff ten days from the
date of the accompanying Order’s entry to explain why the court should not enter a prefiling
injunction against him for his incessant meritless actions about old state court convictions.

3

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying
Order to plaintiff.
Entered: September 17, 2012

/s/ Michael F. Urbanski
Michael F. Urbanski
United States District Judge

4