Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Poole v. Ryan

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green

July 24, 2017




         Plaintiff Kevin Boyd Pool filed the instant pro se action proceeding in forma pauperis.[1]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.


         Plaintiff 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 Credit Union.

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.

         As 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.”


         Because 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).

         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)). “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 Cir. 1995)).


         In 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.

         Defendants ...

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.