United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
CLIFFORD D. MORRIS, Plaintiff,
DANIEL COYETTEE, et al., Defendants.
J. HALE, JUDGE.
a pro se civil rights action brought by a prisoner
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted
Plaintiff Clifford D. Morris leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. This matter is before the Court for screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth
below, the action will be dismissed.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
brings this action against four employees of the Louisville,
Kentucky Public Defender's Office in their official
capacities - Daniel Coyettee, Director; L. Smith,
Assistant Director; A. Ray, “Forming/Attorney;”
and Kalson Chan, “Public Defender.”
complaint, Plaintiff writes as follows:
I made complaints to District Court Judge . . . on several
appearances. She said Kalson C. would represent me correctly.
(A) I explain that I need following filed Aug 2016: compency
test, fast speedy trial, waive all hearing move courts pick
jury to resolve case's. (B) I ask over over to receive
copies Grievances request and Prea Interview all medical
records plus all times been to ER over past year. (C) April
2017 I made lots of requests for p/c motion be filed and
often throughout incarceration since November 22, 2016. (D)
On my circuit and district case's Kalson refused uphold
my 4 Amendment and 8 Amendment C/R for legal work and be
housed out of harm's way. Staff have broken my bones 6
times since 11-23-16 and keep my property away since May
2017. And lots often abuse disrespectful Co's torcher my
bones and soul. Violated my 4 and 8thAmendment
(complaint Bar Ass.).
I made complaints L. Smith . . . of poor service and my
rights violated by Kalson Chan. Smith upheld violation over
and over. This violates my rights to move courts for compency
test, fast speedy trial, waive all hearing move pick jury,
C. Director aviated to talk with me me. I always request each
time talked to Smith, Ray, Chan to inform him of my
case's and of abuse that torcher's my soul. This
violates my 8th and 4th Amendment C/R.
(complaints Bar Ass. Twice).
R. Forming of Kalson Chan I let her know that he did not do
anything ask of him. Compencey test, fast speedy, move to pre
K jury resolve both cases. A) Informed Ray that that 1-26-17
Judge disappeared as I explained abuse and of poor services
of Chan on case's. I told of eating dinner CO's
assaults me picking me up by throat slamming serious injurys
from teeth to back hip ribs mouth etc. B) being suicide watch
March 2nd get stomped broken bones over request
copy stated need p/c. I talk to her several times from 2-19
till 3-2 about for safety while housed suicide watch OPT2.
(C) I stated that I should been sent KCPC for compency test
like I asked of Chan to file motion Aug 2016 over and over. I
stated that I need new attorney to her and following motion .
. . Violates 4th and 8th Amendment.
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
“to preserve complaints to Judges and KCPC, A/C/L/U,
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 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007). 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
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, 94
(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 Nat. 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 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).