United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro
H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge.
a civil rights action brought by a convicted prisoner
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted
Plaintiff Michael Brandon Henson 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
brings this action against the “Daviess County
Detention Center Medical Department.” In his complaint,
Plaintiff writes as follows:
I got my tooth pulled on 12-16-16 the dentist prescribe me
500 mg tylenol twice a day. At 6:30 p.m. on 12-16-16 I
received one pill. On 12-17-16 when meds came around the
medical department wouldn't give me anything. They left
me in pain and they don't care. On 12-17-16 and 12-18-16
I received not one pill for my pain. On the 19th, when the
head nurse was in, was when my medicine got on track. The
nurse that denied me my medicine is Laura. When I ask her her
last name, she told me not to worry about it. All I need to
know is her first name. This isn't my first issue with
medical. I'm tired of how they do me. They don't want
to treat me here that's why I'm pushing the issue.
Just get me ship from here or get my parole restated or get
me early release I'll be happy. Just getting ship will
make me happy.
relief section of the complaint, Plaintiff states: “Get
me ship from here or get me out on parole.”
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).
relief Plaintiff seeks in his complaint is transfer to
another facility, “early release, ” or release on
parole. However, the law is clear that inmates have no
constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular
institution. Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236
(1976); Beard v. Livesay, 798 F.2d 874, 876 (6th
Cir. 1986). Indeed, a federal court only has the authority to
order a State to transfer a prisoner in the rare and extreme
situations where an inmate's life is in imminent or grave
danger. For example, in Streeter v. Hopper, the
Fifth Circuit held that a district court could order the
transfer of two inmates who had presented evidence that their
lives were in grave danger and that their present state
facility was unable to adequately guarantee their safety. 618
F.2d 1178, 1182 (5th Cir. 1980). Similarly, in Walker v.
Lockhart, the Eighth Circuit held that a district court
could order that an inmate be transferred to another
institution where the inmate, who had murdered a police
officer, presented evidence that the warden at his current
facility had threatened his life. 713 F.2d 1378, 1383 (8th
Cir. 1983); see also Moore v. Schuetzle, 486
F.Supp.2d 969, 981 (D.N.D. 2007) (“The administration
of prisons, including particularly state prisons, is
generally not within the province of the court, [except] in
rare and extreme cases . . .”). The Court finds that
Plaintiff's allegations do not suggest such a rare and
extreme situation at Daviess County Detention Center that
this Court would order a transfer.
addition, release from incarceration and placement on parole
are types of relief that can only be sought through a writ of
habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
500 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the
very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the
relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to
immediate release or a speedier release from that
imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas
Plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g.,
Wheeler v. Melanson, No. 15-2419 SECTION P, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 67976 (W.D. La. Mar. 14, 2016) (dismissing
prisoner § 1983 conditions-of-confinement action on
initial review for failure to state a claim upon ...