United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green
N. STIVERS, JUDGE
Kevin Boyd Pool filed the instant pro se action
proceeding in forma pauperis.This matter is now
before the Court on initial review of the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007). Upon initial screening of the complaint, the
instant action will be dismissed for the reasons that follow.
sues the following Defendants: Dr. Ryan, whom he identifies
as a doctor at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital in
Louisville, Kentucky; Dr. Major, whom he identifies as a
doctor in Elizabethtown, Kentucky; and the Fort Knox Federal
As his statement of the claim, Plaintiff states as follows:
Owned my own house in Breckinridge County Black Diamond Area
I believe female doctor from long before being my (mental
dr.) Elizabethtown/Hardin County Hospital. (Her name) (not
rank) Dr. Major. Dr. at Coopers Drive Univ of KY V.A. Hosp. I
found out I had broke her cousins nose another V.A. patient
at a different Lexington, KY V.A. facility. Her cousin liked
to urinate on me. I woke up caught him. Did what I did nose.
Equal protection under the law for disabled. Another female
another (Dr.) Ryan wanted me placed in nursing home until I
was dead V.A. doctor at the time. Fort Knox Federal Credit
Union denied . . . my application for line of credit and
either or credit card late 2, 015 they say my [illegible] it
number why they denied me.
Dr. Ryan female V.A. Hosp had already sent me to nursing home
previous to wanting and discharging me to the nursing home
for the second time. I told staff all day long Zorn Ave.
Louisville V.A. do not make me do something I do not want to
do. With limited phone access I tried to inform some
government officers other than (V.A. Hosp) . . . Releif for
me as seen by me. Move Louisville Regional Office anywhere
but there . . . Orders from somewhere to get me to commit a
felony. Starting with guardian change. I received new
guardian 75.00 a month at my house. I know longer smoke cigs
quit 6 yrs ago while at Glasgow state facility long term care
facility from there after 3 ½ years moved to
apartments Bowling Green KY Aug 15 to 12-21-15. Dr Ryan
discrimination against disabled Dr. Major.
relief, Plaintiff does not seek monetary damages. He states
that he seeks relief in the form of “turn my 10, 000
savings over to me.”
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this
Court must review the instant action. § 1915(e);
McGore, 114 F.3d at 608-09. Upon review, the Court
must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that an
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. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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)). “But the district court need not accept a
‘bare assertion of legal conclusions.'”
Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia
Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court
“recognized for the first time an implied private
action for damages against federal officers alleged to have
violated a citizen's constitutional rights.”
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66
(2001). “Such claims are the counterpart to suits under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state officials who infringe
plaintiffs' federal constitutional or statutory rights,
” Vector Research, Inc. v. Howard & Howard
Attorneys P.C., 76 F.3d 692, 698 (6th Cir. 1996), and
decisional law developed under § 1983 has been fully
applied to Bivens suits. Butz v. Economou,
438 U.S. 478, 498-504 (1978). Thus, to state a claim under
Bivens, a plaintiff must allege that (1) a federal
officer acted under federal law (2) to deprive plaintiff of a
constitutional right. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389.
Plaintiff has not met the second threshold requirement
because he has failed to demonstrate that Defendants'
conduct deprived him of a constitutional right.