United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
YALE L. BALCAR et al. PLAINTIFFS
KENTUCKY STATE REFORMATORY et al. DEFENDANTS
B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
state prisoners at the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), Yale
L. Balcar and Clarence Russell, filed a pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is
before the Court on initial screening of the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. By Memorandum Opinion and
Orders entered October 24 and 25, 2017 (DNs 12 & 13), the
Court dismissed Plaintiff Balcar from the action pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a prior Order
of this Court and for failure to prosecute. Therefore, the
Court will perform its initial review on Plaintiff
Russell's claims only. For the reasons that follow, the
action will be dismissed.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Russell sues KSR and also sues, in their individual and
official capacities, KSR Warden Aaron Smith and KSR Legal
Officer Casey Dowden. The complaint alleges generally that
Plaintiff Russell was “Denied Access to Courts.”
Much of the complaint specifically pertains to Plaintiff
Balcar, who has been dismissed from this action. The Court
will focus on those parts of the complaint that pertain to
both Plaintiffs and only to Plaintiff Russell. The following
allegations appear to apply to both Plaintiffs:
Law Libraries and Legal Assistance is close about 20 days a
month her a Kentucky State Reformatory . . . .
Warden Aaron Smith and Casey Dowden is denied or lack of an
adequate library or legal assistance and ledgal copy for
Court is frustrated or impeded us from bring claims about our
criminal conviction or sentence or about our conditions of
confinement. There is a Actual injury her on my case because
you cannot get to the Law library for reach and cannot get
copy to send to the Court . . . .
only paragraph specifically to mention Plaintiff Russell is
Warden Smith want Balcar to stop all legal help to all
inmates and Clarence Russell. Clarence Russell has a criminal
case and is protected by the Sixth Amendment right to the
effective assistance to legal help and Warden Smith and
Guards wont to interference with the legal help Balcar
ability to consult for legal help, violate Russell rights.
The Court has held that restriction to legal help by a
jailhouse lawyer violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
Process Clause. Also Balcar to Russell has the right to
privacy as a Jail house lawyer under the Fourteenth Amendment
right of privacy. Warden Smith and Guards cannot searches and
read other prisoners legal paper as Clarence Russell that is
in Balcar cell. Which they have done. They can search
contraband only. Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable cell
searches is when they reads legal paper works.
relief, Plaintiff Russell seeks compensatory and punitive
damages and an injunction to “Immediately arrange the
opening of the Law Library 5 Days a weeks and in the morning
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. See
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007). 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 §
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.
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)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
courts are to hold pro se pleadings “to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,
” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this
duty to be less stringent “does not require us 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 courts “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 ...