Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Brand v. Jefferson County Courts

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

April 2, 2018

LONNIE BRAND, JR. Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTS et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          David J. Hale, Judge United States District Court.

         This is a civil rights action brought by a pretrial detainee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff Lonnie Brand, Jr., 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 Court will dismiss the claims herein, but will allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint.

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff names the following as Defendants in this action - “Jefferson County Courts”; “Indies ‘3' Street, a restaurant”; Judge Delahany[1]; and “H.I.P.”

         In the “Statement of Claims” section of the complaint, Plaintiff states:

I'm filing due to the fact that I was detained due to a call that was made by my spouse in which LMPD made contact with me I placed in hindcuffs told that I violated a EPO which was dismissed I tried to explain by then I was detained tooken to jail where I tried to commit suicide on my psych meds while in booking I almost died, I was transported to U of L where the officer who arrested me was rude. Upon my return to jail I was met by corrections officers in which they used excessive force against they displayed misuse of their authority on Sept. 21, 2017 I was placed in a single cell where I had my foot slammed in an door and arraigned that following Saturday in which, I was remained detained, shipped to C.C.C. were I caught a felony charge while in there custody on work release in which I returned to custody same day, I was not paid for my day's of working on sanitation, I was only paid for once, While in custody I had the prosecutor become bias towards my case request a sky high bond, not once but twice be bias towards my case and I haven't been convicted, My 5th & 8 amendment has been violated, not to mention I was robbed this past year have a police report in Newburg but I'm being labeled a menace and I was a robbery victim but I'm being prosecuted to the fullest. I was told by the prosecutor that I need to due time even if innocent. I need to speak to a civil rights lawyer.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief in the form of “release from illegal detention, restoration probation.”

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Because 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, 608 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).

         “[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] 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 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 the 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).

         III. ANALYSIS

         Section 1983 creates no substantive rights but merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere. Flint ex rel. Flint v. Ky. Dep't of Corr., 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir. 2001). Two elements are required to state a claim under § 1983. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). “A plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “Absent either element, a § 1983 claim will not lie.” Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 1991).

         A. Named Defendants

         1. Defendant ...


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.