John David Anderson, III v. Harold W. Clarke, et al.

OREROANOKE □□ FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT —s-#/3/2026 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ee ROANOKE DIVISION DEPUTY CLERK JOHN DAVID ANDERSON, ITI, ) Plaintiff, Case No. 7:23CV00618 Vv. OPINION AND ORDER HAROLD W. CLARKE, et al., JUDGE JAMES P. JONES Defendants.

The plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. This case is currently stayed pending further resolution of class determinations in the case of Thorpe v. Clarke, Civil Action No. 2:20CV7. Min. Order, Dkt. No. 181. Presently before: the court are two motions related to the class action and the stay of this case.

First, Anderson has filed a Motion requesting to opt out of the pending class action, Thorpe. Mot., Dkt. No. 179. Upon my review, however, Anderson’s Motion must be denied as it is premature, as class determinations have not yet been made in the Thorpe case. Once the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) identifies class members, those identified class members will receive notice and an opportunity to opt out of the class. See Thorpe v. Clarke, No. 2:20-cv-00007-JPJ-PMS, Order, Dkt. No. 524; Pl.’s Rev’d Statement & Am. Notice at 8, Dkt. No. 471. In the event Anderson is identified as a class member, he may then submit a written request to opt out of the class.

Second, Anderson has filed a Motion to Lift the Stay of this case, asserting that he received information that the court denied the motion for summary judgment in Thorpe, thus, this matter can proceed. Mot. Lift Stay, Dkt. No. 195. While Anderson is correct that the court has ruled on the pending motion for summary judgment in Thorpe, Anderson’s case has been stayed pending the further resolution of class determinations, which was not resolved by the summary judgment ruling.

As stated, class determinations have not yet been made, as the VDOC is in the process of identifying class members. Therefore, Anderson’s Motion to Lift the Stay must be denied. See Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”); see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 429 (2009) (“A stay ‘simply suspend[s] judicial alteration of the status quo... .’”) (quoting Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1212 (1986)).

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Anderson’s Motion to Opt Out of the Class Action, Dkt. No. 179, is DENIED without prejudice, and Anderson’s Motion to Lift Stay, Dkt. No 195, is DENIED, without prejudice.

-2- ENTER: April 3, 2026 /s/_ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge -3-