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.

Moore v. Council

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division

June 27, 2018

ROBERT MOORE PLAINTIFF
v.
JOSEPH COUNCIL DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          David L. Banning United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Robert Moore's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, as well as an attached Complaint. (Docs. # 1 and 1-1). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 1) is hereby granted, but Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. # 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Moore initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Defendant Joseph Council. (Doc. # 1). In doing so, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 1), and tendered a Complaint. (Doc. # 1-1). Thereafter, the Southern District of Ohio transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. (Docs. # 2 and 3).

         A review of the Plaintiff's Complaint reveals a litany of allegations. The particular claims Plaintiff wishes to bring, however, are difficult to discern given that much of the Complaint is mere gobbledygook. From the erratic factual account, the numerous offers of testamentary proof, and various mentions of constitutional violations, the Court has attempted to make sense of Plaintiff's Complaint and identify the relevant legal issues.

         As best the Court can tell, it appears that the Plaintiff, Defendant, and various other parties have found themselves involved in a chaotic and conflict-ridden interpersonal situation. Evidently, the Plaintiff's ex-wife[1]-Alison Moore-is now involved in a romantic relationship with the Defendant. (Doc. # 1-1 at 6, 7). The primary reason for Plaintiff's filing of the instant Complaint appears to be an alleged incident of physical violence that occurred on or about June 2, 2018:

Joseph Council-defendant named assaulted Plaintiff Robert Moore on June 02, 2018 Intentionally, willingly and maliciously with his hands namely a punch to Plaintiffs [sic] ribs or stomach and thereby causing him injury to his body, namely a lot of pain and suffering and brusing [sic] and hurt [his] body flesh or person.

Id. at 3. The Plaintiff further claims that “[a]ll of this was done to plaintiff, by defendant, without any fault of plaintiff while plaintiff was standing in a public street talking to his son.” Id. In addition to physical pain and suffering, the Plaintiff alleges that the event caused “mental anguish to [his] mind.” Id. The Complaint alleges that the physical pain from the June 2, 2018 incident lasted “almost a week.” Id. at 6.

         The conflict-and the allegations-continue past June 2, 2018. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that approximately two weeks after the June 2, 2018 incident, the Defendant “came to [Plaintiff's] residence in the cover of night and slashed [his] girlfriend Rouzin Saed's tires on her vehicle” and thereby “deprived [Plaintiff] of [his] rights to live free of fear, rights to travel using a vehicle and [his] constitutional rights to not be harmed in [his] body or mind.” Id. at 3. On this same night, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant “broke into [his] car and took around 250 cash and [his] pain medication.” Id. at 4. Afterwards, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's “blood relative” provided a get-away car so that the Defendant could flee the scene. Id. at 5.

         In addition to these specific incidents, the Plaintiff accuses the Defendant and Alison Moore-his ex-wife and apparently the custodian of his children-of illicit drug use. Id. at 6. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has “manipulate[ed] and influence[d]” Alison Moore to “withhold” Plaintiff's children from him. Id. at 4. These actions, the Plaintiff claims, violate his “constitutional rights to own … and possess [his] relationship as a parent over [his] two kids” and constitute “interference” with his “rights to parent [his] children” under the United States Constitution. Id. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant has interfered with and violated his constitutional rights for eight months.[2] Id.

         As a result of the aforementioned events, the Plaintiff claims that he is “missing sleep, ” “scared for [his] life, ” and “worr[ies] constantly that [the Defendant] will come and shoot [him] dead” because the Plaintiff saw the Defendant “with a knife while he slashed” the “tires of [Plaintiff's] girlfriend's vehicles.” Id. at 4. The Plaintiff also claims to be aggrieved by the Defendant's and Alison Moore's actions with respect to his children:

For the last 8 months when I have tried to see my kids, Joey Council has interfered with my relationship with them and greatly influenced their mother to not let me see my own blood children. He has said many times to me that I am not welcome around them. I am not wanted anymore by them. He will raise them as their own dad.

Id. at 7. In addition to contesting the Defendant's and Alison Moore's fitness to parent, the Plaintiff claims to “have texts where Alison and Joey have said to stay away from [his] kids and the kids don't love [him] at all and don't like [him].” Id. Finally, the Plaintiff asserts that “Alison Moore and Joey are playing head games and house with [his] children's lives” and alleges that he is his “kids [sic] father” and that the Defendant is “unconstitutionally interfering with [his] children's lives and [his] relationship with them.” Id. at 7.

         The Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief throughout his Complaint. First, Plaintiff asks the Court to “issue a restraining order” against the Defendant, “give [Plaintiff] a new name so” the Defendant cannot “find [Plaintiff] and kill [him], ” and for a “jury trial and all else.” (Doc. # 1-1 at 5). Later in the Complaint, Plaintiff again demands a jury trial and a “restraining order” against the Defendant preventing him from coming near the Plaintiff and his “minor children, ” as well as “Rouzin Saed or her kids, ” who are not parties to this action. Id. at ...


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.