United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
N. Stivers, United States District Judge.
Angelo Cross filed this pro se civil action on a
general complaint form. Because Plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis, this Court must review the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the
following reasons, the action will be dismissed.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
names two Defendants in this action - the “City of
Louisville” and the “Louisville Police
states that the basis for the Court's jurisdiction is
“declaration of duty . . . hasslement declaration, and
any bad all other crime that is done to me. I am mently
disable so I don't know all the law.”
then writes as follow:
My name is Angelo Cross for the last 20 yr. I have been
assalted, hassles, rob, and every time the Police Dep. did
not filled a complaint, or took out any paperwork on what
happen, they till who assault me to go on, and till me to go
him or I be lock up. Any crime against me they do nothing.
They said my life don't matter. I call 911 to put it on
record so every time it happen I know, on 4th St.
Live last year it happen again and they did nothing. . . .
The Police Dep. is to protect and sever. They are sworn to do
a job and they fill that some people don't have to. I am
a mently person and I am not trying to kill someone or
myself. So can the court help me.
Plaintiff indicates that he is also seeking damages as
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a district court must
dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the 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. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds
by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
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
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 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).
does not cite a recognizable constitutional provision or
federal law as the basis for his claims. However, based on
Plaintiff's allegations, the Court liberally construes