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.

Aldridge v. Haley

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division

February 24, 2015

WESLEY ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY HALEY et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GREG N. STIVERS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Wesley Aldridge, a prisoner currently incarcerated in the Graves County Jail, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He subsequently filed two other documents which he captioned as complaints (DNs 5 & 10) and another document he captioned as an "Addendum to Complaint" (DN 9). The Court considers these subsequently filed documents to be motions to amend the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions to amend (DNs 5, 9 & 10) are GRANTED.

This matter is before the Court for initial review of the complaint and amendments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).[1] For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss this action.

I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

Plaintiff identifies the following seven Defendants in this action: (1) Randy Haley, Jailer at the Graves County Jail; (2) Deborah Crooks, a Graves County District Court Judge; (3) Dwayne Redmon, Graves County Sheriff; (4) Steve Halsell, a detective with the Graves County Sheriff's Office; (5) Steve Hendley, a detective with the Graves County Sheriff's Office; (6) Brent Farmer, a detective with the Mayfield, Kentucky Police Department; and (7) the Graves County Sheriff's Department.[2] Each individual Defendant is sued in both his or her individual and official capacities, with the exception of Defendant Crooks who is sued in her individual capacity only.

Plaintiff seeks "Cumulative and punitive Monetary Damages" and that "All Charges pending, Contemplated and or filed Be immediately Dismissed." In one of his amendments, Plaintiff states that since he has been in jail he has been charged with terroristic threatening of Defendants Halsell and Farmer, and that two inmates who are working for the police are housed in his cell. Plaintiff requests that an investigation of this situation be done.

According to Plaintiff, on April 22, 2014, Defendants Halsell and Hendley set up a meeting with Plaintiff to buy "two eight-balls of methemphetamin" from him. When the detectives searched Plaintiff, he states they found only syringes and a tin containing two pills. The Plaintiff states that these Defendants took him to their office where an agent from McCracken County named Murphy also met with them. According to Plaintiff, Defendants Halsell and Hendley had a conversation with Plaintiff about helping them get his drug suppliers. Plaintiff represents that they told him he could help himself if he helped them get the "meth." Plaintiff states that in the course of the conversation, Defendants Halsell and Hendley threatened Plaintiff with a felony charge and reminded him that there was an ATF agent who was interested in Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, Defendants Halsell and Hendley promised Plaintiff that if he helped them get the drug suppliers he would not have any charges except his "bench warrants for F.T.A. [failure to appear]." Plaintiff states that he eventually agreed to help the officers.

Thereafter, according to Plaintiff, Defendants Halsell and Hendley, along with Murphy, set up a situation where Plaintiff called his drug suppliers and arranged a place to meet with them to purchase methamphetamine. Plaintiff states that the meeting occurred and the two drug suppliers were arrested and the methamphetamine obtained. Plaintiff states that he was thereafter taken to jail and arrested on outstanding bench warrants from Graves and McCracken County. He states that he remained in jail for a few weeks.

Plaintiff states that on August 15, 2014, he was arrested in Decatur, Tennessee. He states that he appeared in a Tennessee court on August 18, 2014, and pled guilty to the charges there. According to Plaintiff, he received a probated term with time served. During the court hearing in Tennessee, Plaintiff asserts that he was informed that he had pending charges in Graves County, Kentucky and that there was a detainer against him. He states that he was never given a proper extradition hearing nor did he receive proper notice of these charges. Plaintiff states that the judge brought him papers he assumed were a waiver of extradition. Plaintiff states that he signed them without counsel and unaware of his rights. He states that he was thereafter transported to the Graves County Jail in Kentucky.

During transport, according to Plaintiff, he found out about the details of the pending Graves County charges. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Halsell swore out a complaint against Plaintiff on August 18, 2014, and a warrant was generated on August 21, 2014. Plaintiff states that the criminal complaint and charges were based on the April 22, 2014, events. The warrant, according to Plaintiff, listed the items that were in his possession when the detectives arrested him on April 22, 2014. Plaintiff states that Defendant Halsell acted in "bad faith" since Plaintiff had assisted the detectives and the drug suppliers were arrested. He further states, "I find the dates which are exact in my release in the Sister state are extreme since I assisted these officers and they seemingly black mailed me."

Plaintiff contends that his Fifth, Sixth, and Thirteenth Amendment rights have been violated. He further contends that "[w]e will prove violations of Due Process and ineffective Assistance of Counsel."

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 v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 608.

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 ...


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.