Hall v. Miller, No. 7:2021cv00617 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 12/14/2021. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hall v. Miller Case 7:21-cv-00617-TTC-RSB Document 3 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 12 Doc. 3 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). 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). 1 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.”) 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 7:21-cv-00617-TTC-RSB Document 3 Filed 12/14/21 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 13 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-
]]>
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.
