Hall v. Miller

W.D. Virginia

Hall v. Miller

DecidedDecember 14, 2021

Docket7:21-cv-00617

StatusUnknown

This text of Hall v. Miller (Hall v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Miller, (W.D. Va. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

JERRY RAY HALL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:21cv00617 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) SGT. MILLER, ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendant. ) ________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Jerry Ray Hall, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sgt. Miller. At least three of Hall’s previous actions, however, have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 Therefore, Hall may not proceed with this action unless he either prepays the filing fee or shows that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As Hall has neither prepaid the filing fee nor demonstrated that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury,”2 the court dismisses his complaint without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(g).

1 See e.g., Hall v. Nikstaitis, Civil Action No. 7:19cv875 (W.D. Va. April 15, 2020) (dismissed as frivolous and malicious); Hall v. Williams, et al., Civil Action No. 7:20cv162 (W.D. Va. April 21, 2020) (dismissed as frivolous); Hall v. Simmons, Civil Action No. 7:20cv706 (W.D. Va April 22, 2021) (dismissed for failure to state a claim).

2 Hall’s only allegations against Sgt. Miller are that she has “been denying [him] the due procedures” related to the grievance process and that she “do[es]n’t tell the truth to [any]body” and she “can’t back up her words that come[] out of her mouth.” As relief, Hall asks to “have the Sgt. rank tak[en] from Miller for false statement.” Hall’s allegations against Sgt. Miller do not suggest that Hall is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Springer v. Day, No. 7:16cv261, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76270, at *3, 2016 WL 3248601, at *1 (W.D. Va. June 13, 2016) (quoting Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002)) (“Courts have held that the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)’s ‘three strikes’ rule must be construed narrowly and applied only for ‘genuine emergencies,’ where ‘time is pressing’ and ‘a threat . . . is real and proximate’ to the alleged official misconduct.”) The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order to Hall. ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2021.

/s/ Thomas T. Cullen_________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Moreover, these allegations do not state a viable constitutional claim against Sgt. Miller. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). - 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

JERRY RAY HALL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:21cv00617 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) SGT. MILLER, ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendant. ) ________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Jerry Ray Hall, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sgt. Miller. At least three of Hall’s previous actions, however, have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 Therefore, Hall may not proceed with this action unless he either prepays the filing fee or shows that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As Hall has neither prepaid the filing fee nor demonstrated that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury,”2 the court dismisses his complaint without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(g).

1 See e.g., Hall v. Nikstaitis, Civil Action No. 7:19cv875 (W.D. Va. April 15, 2020) (dismissed as frivolous and malicious); Hall v. Williams, et al., Civil Action No. 7:20cv162 (W.D. Va. April 21, 2020) (dismissed as frivolous); Hall v. Simmons, Civil Action No. 7:20cv706 (W.D. Va April 22, 2021) (dismissed for failure to state a claim).

2 Hall’s only allegations against Sgt. Miller are that she has “been denying [him] the due procedures” related to the grievance process and that she “do[es]n’t tell the truth to [any]body” and she “can’t back up her words that come[] out of her mouth.” As relief, Hall asks to “have the Sgt. rank tak[en] from Miller for false statement.” Hall’s allegations against Sgt. Miller do not suggest that Hall is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Springer v. Day, No. 7:16cv261, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76270, at *3, 2016 WL 3248601, at *1 (W.D. Va. June 13, 2016) (quoting Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002)) (“Courts have held that the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)’s ‘three strikes’ rule must be construed narrowly and applied only for ‘genuine emergencies,’ where ‘time is pressing’ and ‘a threat . . . is real and proximate’ to the alleged official misconduct.”) The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order to Hall. ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2021.

/s/ Thomas T. Cullen_________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Moreover, these allegations do not state a viable constitutional claim against Sgt. Miller. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). - 2 -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hall v. Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-miller-vawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack