United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky
H. McKinley, Jr., United States District Court Chief Judge
a civil rights action brought by a convicted prisoner against
the United States of America Department of Justice. The Court
has granted Plaintiff Dana Lockhart leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court for
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 594
U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, the action
will be dismissed.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
initiated this action on a Court-supplied 42 U.S.C. §
1983/Bivens form. She names as the Defendant the
“United States of America Department of Justice”
(DOJ). In her complaint, Plaintiff states as follows:
I asked for help in seeking safety and security from being
human trafficked . . . kidnapped - stalked state to state . .
. raped - assaulted with a deadly weapon (gun) (extortion) -
I asked for help in Texas - Oklahoma - Kentucky and Indiana -
I've had to hid since 2014 from everyone - move state to
state become an informant. I have police reports all over the
U.S. I went online to email FBI - Washington -Texas -
Oklahoma - Kentucky - also state police. Everyone completely
ignored me as if I was crazy or making up stories. There has
been serious crimes committed against me. I was put on
backpage.com as a hooker. I was stalked at my jobs (career)
in oil fields and wind energy so bad I lost them - my family,
my whole life. Its gone.
I'm in a Kentucky jail on a child support order that is
out of Newton County, Indiana. And Kentucky even raised my
child support. I have a history of paying for my kids well!!
While I was an informant - I sent the taunting messages of
some laughing at me at how they got away with assaulting me
with a weapon. I made up two Facebook profiles - and acted
like they were my new boyfriend and my stalker messaged them
100 times. I saved a lot of the screen shots - a lot of the
proof - I had an Oklahoma City cop lie to me about being a
federal agent and had me thinking I was his informant and was
taking him to homes of cartels and gang members and I wound
up raped at gun point. I've done all I can legally.
I've went to everyone I could before going this far. I
didn't ask for money or anything. Just HELP!! I
wouldn't be in this jail - I'd have my kids, my
career, everything. It's all been taking from me while
federal law enforcement ignored me and treated me as if my
life did not matter. My stalker goes around filing false
charges on the fake protection orders after I filed on him.
All I'm looking for is Justice, freedom of fear . . .
protection as I deserve. I'm not the one who should be
sitting in jail.
relief, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of
“release on parole” and “a full
investigation to seek justice.”
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 604. 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)).
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] pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)). However, while liberal, this standard of review does
require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions.
See Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum,
58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995). The court's duty
“does not require [it] to conjure up unpled
allegations, ” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16,
19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a claim for a plaintiff.
Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co.,
518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise
would require the court “to explore exhaustively all
potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would
also transform the district court from its legitimate
advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out
the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a
party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d
1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff does not identify the legal bases for her claims
against the DOJ, there are only two types of actions which
are permitted against the federal government and/or its
officials - actions brought under Bivens v. Six Fed.
Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), or the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Court will
consider each of these in turn.
established a private right of action for damages against
individual federal government officials who violate a
citizen's constitutional or federal statutory rights
under color of federal law. However, the only Defendant
Plaintiff names in this action is the DOJ. The United States
has not waived its sovereign immunity for Bivens
claims asserted against the United States government, its
agencies, or its employees in their official capacities.
See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,
484-86 (1994); Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397
(6th Cir. 1991); see also Okoro v. Scibana, 63 F.
App'x 182 (6th Cir. 2003) (stating that a federal
prisoner cannot bring a Bivens action against the
Bureau of Prisons); Mangold v. U.S. Dep't of
State, No. 4:15CV02300, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57350, at
*3 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2016) (Bivens “does not