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.

Cross v. City of Louisville

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

April 23, 2018

ANGELO CROSS PLAINTIFF
v.
CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Greg N. Stivers, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff 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.

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff names two Defendants in this action - the “City of Louisville” and the “Louisville Police Department.”

         Plaintiff 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.”

         Plaintiff 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 relief.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         On 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).

         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 (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)).

         Although 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).

         III. ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff 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 the ...


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.