United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
LONNIE BRAND, JR. Plaintiff,
JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTS et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. Hale, Judge United States District Court.
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.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
names the following as Defendants in this action -
“Jefferson County Courts”; “Indies
‘3' Street, a restaurant”; Judge
Delahany; and “H.I.P.”
“Statement of Claims” section of the complaint,
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.
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
injunctive relief in the form of “release from illegal
detention, restoration probation.”
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).
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).
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).