McKinney v. Commonwealth Of Virginia et al, No. 2:2018cv00051 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 12/17/18. (ejs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ct -EM ' sATM OFFICE U,S.DIsT. coUr INGD ON,VA FILED IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T FO R T H E W ESTER N D IST R IC T O F V IR G IM A BIG ST O N E G A P D IV ISIO N DE2 1 ? 2212 JU BY: C. LEY C ,, PUTY CLERK D O N W .M CK IN N EY , Plaintiff, CaseNo 2:18CV 6-l, . O PIN IO N A N D O R D E R C O M M O N W E A L TH O F V IR G IN IA , E T A L ., By: Jam esP.Jones U nited States D istrictJudge Drfendants. Don I'JIM cKinney,ProSePlaintff ln thispro se action,the plaintiffseeks to proceed in form a pauperis. B ased upon the financialaffidavit he has subm itted,l will allow his pleading,which I treatasaComplaintunder42U.S.C.j 1983,tobefiledwithoutthepaymentofthe filing fee,pursuantto 28U.S.C.j 1915(a)(1). However,upon examination ofthe Com plaintand otherm aterials subm itted by the plaintiff,1w illdism issthe case. l willalso give the plaintiff21 days to objectto a proposed Pre-Filing Injunction prohibiting him from proceeding in forma pauperis ((dIFP'')for a period of four McKinney v. Commonwealth Of Virginia et al years in any case involving claim s previously asserted and dism issed. Doc. 3 In O ctober 1993,M cK inney w as arrested on a state crim inal charge and a probation violation charge and he w as detained untilFebruary 1994. H e eventually Dockets.Justia.com pleaded notguilty by reason ofinsanity and hasbeen thereafterconfined in m ental health institutions from tim e to tim e. Since then,he has fled nunAerous pro se actions in this court raising various com plaints related to the state crim inal case and his confinem ent. The court'srecords indicate thatsince 1993,M cKirm ey has filed at least 38 separate cases. The actions com e on a regular basis,usually once or tw ice a year. In this,his latest action,he com plains that he w as w rongfully confined follow ing the state crim inal case,and he also com plaints of a state civil action filed in 2006 involving thesale ofland in which he claim ed an interest. M cK inney alleges thatthe Circuit Courtof W ise County violated his Sixth Amendm ent rightto a jury trialfollowing his plea of notguilty by reason of insanity by confining him and giving him ttbad m edication.'' Com pl. 1. The m edicine allegedly was adm inistered by the Lee and W ise County PD-I B ehavioral H ealth Com m unity Services B oard from M ay 24, 2010, until the Present. M cK inney further contends thathis crim inalcase should have been heard in Lee C ounty rather than W ise County. H e alleges that the Circuit Court of W ise C ounty w rongfully sold his land w ithouthis signature. H e claim s that A ngie and Jolm Fleenor are illegally living on his land w ithout paying rent, and he w ants them evicted. - 2- Since m ailing his originalpleading in thiscase on June 11,2018,M cltinney has subm itted severaladditionalpleadings as attachm ents. ln the first,captioned ((R e: Land,'' he com plains that he did not sign any papers w hen his land w as auctioned off and bought by Edna B oggs, D aniel M cK inney, and Jeannine Chapm an in 2006,2007,and 2008. H e w ants the Circuit CourtofW ise C ounty to return hisland to him and repay the purchasers. H e contendshe isentitled to the land because the land w as bequeathed to him in the willofCallow ay M cK irm ey, hisfather. ln the next attachm ent,styled as a letter to m e,he asserts thatthe land w as stolen from him by B oggs,D anielM cK inney,and Chapm an. H e claim s the land was sold withouthis signature because he washospitalized atthe tim e following hiscrim inalprosecution. H ethen w rites, Y ou cannot sellland cause w e did not m ake it,Jesus Christm ade it, and ifyou say you can sellland then you are m aking Jesus Christout of a liar, and he is not! Jesus Christ is the w ay,the truth and life, nobody com es unto the Father except through Jesus Christ. A m en. Please forgive m e Jesus Cluist,forgive m e,1repent! Praise the H oly Ghost whom resides in m e. N ow getting back to the land grabbers they w ere stupid cause 1 am not giving up m y land that Jesus Christ, C allow ay M cK inney m ade m e the ofticial heir or else have thç FederalCourtwrite an Orderto givem y land back. Ltr.1-2. In a postscript,he w rites,çcrfhere isno statute of lim itations on land w hat Jesus Christm adel'' Ltr.2. H e next subm itted a N otice to this Courtthat Plaintiff W ants his Case Expedited orSped Up. ln thispleading,afterrequesting thathiscase be expedited, he wrote,EtAlso,please note: A m oped by definition underm otorvehicle shallbe deem ed not a m otor vehicle, and m y case is real, due to it happened to a real person by the nam e of D on W ayne M cK irm eyl'' N otice 1. On O ctober 22,2014, he subm itted a completed short form Application to Proceed in District Court W ithoutPrepaying Fees or Costs in which he indicated thathe receives $740 per m onth in disability benefits and hasonly ten cents in his barlk account. M ostrecently M cK inney subm itted anotherpleading styled as a letter to m e. ln theletter,herequestsan injunction to preventhim from returning to the Circuit Courtof W ise County or any Comm unity Services Board because of an alleged unspecised conflict. H e also asks m e to close W ise County B ehavioral H ealth because itis allegedly distributing dangerous synthetic m edications. The only defendants nam ed by him in the present action are the Com m onw ealth of V irginia,the Circuit C ourtof W ise C ounty,V irginia,and this court. ltisapparentthattheplaintiffhagfailed to statea claim on which reliefm ay be granted and accordingly,his action willbe dism issed pursuant to 28 U .S.C. j 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 4- - 1l. A snoted above,M cK inney frequently tiles duplicative,frivolous casesthat strain this'court's lim ited resources. W hile his cases are pending,he usually files m ultiple attachm ents and often callsthe clerk's offce to check on the statusofthe case. This appears to be the second case brought by M cK irm ey regarding the decade-old land sale. See Op., M cK inney v. United States D istrict Court, N o. 2:17CV 00018,ECF N o. M any of M cK irm ey's prior com plaints have asserted thatthe 1994 state courtcriminaljudgm entfinding him not guilty by reason of insanity w as unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Scc, c.g., M cK inney v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2:15CV00013; M cKinney v. Commonwea1th of Virginia,2:12CV00032;M cKinney v.Commonwealth of Virginia,7:12CV00166; M cK inney Commonwealth of Virginia, 7:11CV00576, . M cKinney v. Commonwealth of Virginia,2' .10CV00067;McKinney v.Wise Cfy.Cir.Ct.,7:07cv-00004; M cK inney Unnam ed Respondent, 7:06-cv-00702; M cK inney v. K ilgore, 7:05-cv-00450;M cK inney v.K ilgore,7:05-cv-00255, .M cKinney v. W ise C/y. Cir. Ct.,7:01-cv-00l81' ,M cK inney v.D eans, 7' .99-cv-00423. W hile 1 am m indfulthatM cK inney is a pro se litigantand suffers from m entalillness,1believe a limited pre-filing injunction againstM cKinney may be necessary to preserve scarcejudicialresources. - 5- tçg-llhe A11W ritsAct,28 U.S.C.j 1651(a)(2000),grantsfederalcourtsthe authority to lim it access to the courts by vexatious and repetitive litigants .. ..'' Cromerv.Kra.ftFoodsALAm.,lnc.,390 F.3d 812,817 (4th Cir.2004). ççsuch a drastic.rem edy m ust be used sparingly, how ever, consistent w ith constitutional guarantees of due process of 1aw and access to the courts.'' 1d. Courts m ust be particularly cautiousin lim iting therightofpro se litigantsto accessthe courts. 1d. The Fourth Circuithasadvised, In determining whether a pretiling injunction is substantively w arranted, a court m ust w eigh a11 the relevant circum stances, including (1)theparty'shistory oflitigation,in particularwhetherhe hasfiledvexatious,harassing,orduplicative lawsuits;(2)whetherthe party had a good faith basis for pursuing the litigation, or sim ply intendedtoharass;(3)theextentoftheburden on thecourtsand other parties resulting from the party's filings;and (4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions. Id.at818. lfIdeterminethatapre-filing injunction isappropriate,Iççmustensure thatthe injunction isnarrowly tailored to fitthe specifc circllmstances atissue.'' 1d. l m ust also provide M cK inney w ith notice and an opportunity to be heard beforeany injunctiontakeseffect.1d.at819. Applying the Cromer factorb,M cKirmey has a history of filing duplicative lawsuitsasserting claimsthatthe courthasalready adjudicated.Ifind thathehas no good faith basis for repeatedly asserting the sam e claim s. A ddressing each of his pleadingsand the related inquiries consum es the scarce resources ofthis court's staff. EtEvery paper filed w ith the Clerk ofthis Court,no m atter how repetitious or - 6- frivolous,requiressom eportion ofthe institution'slim ited resources.A partofthe Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a w ay that promotesthe interests ofjustice.'' ln re McDonald,489 U.S.180,184 (1989). Finally,because M cKinney has little incom e and virtually no assets,l find that altem ative m easures such as m onetary sanctions w ould be inadequate to deter him from seeking to usethe1FP procedureto file future actions. For these reasons,Ibelieve thatitis necessary to enjoin M cKinney 9om proceeding 1FP for a period of fouryears in any action involving claim s previously m ade and dism issed. He willalso be required to subm it a copy ofthe pre-tiling injunction with any new action submitted in this district. Consistentwlth due process requirem ents,M cllinney willhave 21 days to object to the proposed injunction. 111. Itishereby O R D E R ED as follow s: The Com plaintw illbe tsled w ithoutthe paym entofa filing fee; 2. The Com plaintw illbe D ISM ISSED by separate order for failure to state a claim ;and 3. The plaiùtiff,D on W .M cK irm ey,shallhave 21 days from today's date to object to the proposed Pre-Filing Injunction described above. If - 7- M cKinney does nottimely object, the court will enter a Pre-Filing lnjunctionwith thetermssetforth herein. EN TER : D ecem ber 17,2018 /s/ Jam esP.Jones U nited States D istrictJudge - 8-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
