Meyers v. Dye et al
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 8/1/2022. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
DAVID MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
B. DYE, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00298
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By order entered June 22, 2022, the court directed plaintiff David Meyers, who is an
inmate proceeding pro se, to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days. (Dkt. No. 45.)
Meyers instead filed an interlocutory appeal (Dkt. No. 46), which neither this court nor the
Fourth Circuit has authorized.
1
In his notice of appeal, Meyers states he is appealing from the court’s order directing him
to file an amended complaint. He then sets forth a number of allegations that appear unrelated to
2
the order itself. He also accuses the undersigned and the assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge in this
case of being “white supremacist racists” and “compulsive liars,” saying that the undersigned
“will not tell the truth about anything.” (Notice of Appeal 5, Dkt. No. 46.) Presumably as a
result of these unfounded and untrue accusations, he also specifically requests that the Chief
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit designate another U.S.
1
Because Meyers’s appeal is an unauthorized appeal from an unappealable order, it does not deprive this
court of jurisdiction over his case. See United States v. Jones, 367 F. App’x 482, 484 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district
court does not lose jurisdiction when the litigant takes an appeal from an unappealable order.”); Automobili
Lamborghini S.p.A. v. Garcia, 467 F. Supp. 3d 385, 394 & n.31 (E.D. Va. 2020) (collecting authority holding same).
2
For example, Meyers sets forth allegations about being “illegally kidnap[ped],” and taken from a VDOC
facility to a North Carolina facility. (Id. at 2.) He claims that in June 2021 through the date of his appeal, he has not
been allowed to possess his legal files, which includes 18 boxes of documents. (Id. at 2–3.) He alleges that North
Carolina Corrections officials are trying to have inmates murder him, including forcing him to use excessive
amounts of various drugs to try to get him to overdose. (Id. at 3, 4.) He claims that certain of these actions violate
court orders entered in different state and federal cases. He also reiterates some of the allegations underlying his
claims in this or other cases he has filed.
District Judge and U.S. Magistrate Judge from another court to preside over this case. (Id. at 1–
2.)
Meyers’s notice of appeal also indicates that the court’s June 22, 2022 order and the
blank complaint form sent with it were “torn up” by prison officials (id. at 5), and so the Clerk
sent him new copies of that order and complaint form. (See docket entry dated July 8, 2022
(stating that the Clerk sent a copies of those documents to Meyers).) He further argues that this
case is not subject to the prefiling injunction entered by this court in another case because it was
filed before that order was entered. (See Order at 1 n.1., Dkt. No. 45 (describing injunction
order).)
3
It is now well beyond the deadline set by the June 22, 2022 order (and also more than
twenty-one days since July 8, 2022, the date that the order and blank complaint form were sent to
him a second time). To date, however, the Clerk has not received an amended complaint from
Meyers. The court’s order warned Meyers that a failure to file an amended complaint by the
stated deadline could result in the dismissal of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the court will dismiss
this action without prejudice. An appropriate order will be entered.
Entered: August 1, 2022.
/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon
Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge
3
To clarify, the court expressly stated that it was not applying the 2019 prefiling injunction order to
Meyers’s original complaint in this case, which was filed in November 2018 in the Eastern District of Virginia and
then transferred to this court in June 2022. (Dkt. No. 45 at 1 n.1.) As the court explained, though, the injunction
order will apply to all of Meyers’s future submissions in this court. To the extent that Meyers is arguing that the
court cannot apply the prefiling injunction to future submissions by him in this case, he presents no authority for that
proposition. By its terms, the injunction order applies to all submissions by Meyers after its entry. See Meyers v.
Roanoke U.S. Att’y, No. 7:19-cv-00573, Dkt. No. 10 (Sept. 6, 2019 Order and Injunction).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?