Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hopson v. Louisville Metro Police

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

July 11, 2013

DeANDRE HOPSON, Plaintiff,
v.
LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES R. SIMPSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff, DeAndre Hopson, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint.[1] This matter is now before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed.

I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

Plaintiff sues: Louisville Metro Police, 5th Division; Ruth Spencer; CPS social worker; Teresa Grey; Nicole Pearson; Detective Gary Huffman; Lily Solinger; and Adam Solinger. The first page of the complaint mentions, among other things, whistleblowing action; hate crime; the "Matthew Shepards Byrd Action"; federal obstructing justice and extortion; "domestic violence effecting Interstate commerce"; and retaliation. His complaint contains a rambling, disjointed narrative of a vast conspiracy or conspiracies. For example, Plaintiff alleges:

All courts are obstructing justice to protect Defendant Benny Berry as district courts attorneys are staging more kangaroo courts for Hopson, as prosecutors were threaten and intimadated by Benny Berry, telephone and internet was used to set up these deceitful trick of drag[g]ing Hopson into a set up conspiracy to take Hopson's children.

Elsewhere, his complaint states: "Defendants all are in conspiracy to silense DeAndre Hopson to be [illegible] railroad to death or penitentiary on account of these large peter, paul game of steal one to pay for others." His complaint asks for monetary damages.

II. ANALYSIS

This Court must review the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 608-09. Upon review, this Court must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines that the action is "frivolous or malicious, " fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. When determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted "only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000).

While a reviewing court must liberally construe pro se pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Whistle-blowing

Although at the beginning of his complaint, Plaintiff writes, "Whistle Blowing Action, " he does not cite to a specific statute, and there are several federal statutes prohibiting retaliation against whistleblowers. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 1221 (Whistleblower Protection Act); 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (False Claims Act); 33 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (Federal Water Pollution Control Act); 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (Clean Air Act); among others. None of these statutes would apply to the facts alleged by Plaintiff. Any whistleblower claims will be dismissed.

Hate Crime Prevention Act

Plaintiff cites to the Matthew Shepherd and James Bird Hate Crime Prevention Act, found at 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2). However, this is a criminal statute, and Plaintiff, as a private citizen, has no authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution. Jermano v. Taylor, No. 11-10739, 2012 WL 4021115, at *6 (E.D. Mich. July ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.