MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS B, RUSSELL, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff Christopher Montgomery's pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss the claim for damages and will allow the claim for injunctive relief to continue.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff brings his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kentucky State Penitentiary
(KSP) Warden Randy White and Deputy Warden Duke Pettit in their official capacities seeking monetary and punitive damages and an injunction ordering Defendants to transfer him to a Class D facility in Henderson County.
Plaintiff claims that on numerous occasions he "brought and wrote Randy White and Duke Pettit concerning my safety and my life being in danger in P.C. and in G.P. do to Myself being gay and My involement in a gang a few years Back." He reports that he has "not received an answer that is going to help me in that situation."
Plaintiff alleges that his life was threatened when he denied "a G.P. Inmate sexual favors." He continues as follows:
when I did that inmate and his buddies came to me and tryed to force me to do sexual things with them in the shower. I refused and left the shower. Then I was told by a gang of Crips that if I didn't start paying yard tax then they way going to all stab me. I then checked in to the hold for P.C. I go to P.C. and I run into the same problems I destroy a pair of pants so I can get wrote up and go to the hold there I wrote Duke Pettit and Randy White about everything and they still refuse to do anything about the Problem They refuse to Transfer me which my point score does allow me to leave and go to a Class D or a medium security prison. I told almost every Higher go up person I fear for my life and my safety and Please Transfer me.
They ignore me like I'm Just Playing and I'm serious.
Plaintiff alleges violations of "Human Rights in Article 3, Article 5, Article 7."
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the court determines that it 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. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore, 114 F.3d at 604.
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 trial 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.
In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true." Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). "A pleading that offers labels and conclusions' or a formulaic ...