United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
B. Russell, Senior Judge United States District Court.
a pro se civil rights action brought by a convicted
prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has
granted Plaintiff Terrance Lee Landers 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 some claims
but allow others to proceed.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
is incarcerated at the Fulton County Detention Center (FCDC).
He brings this action against Jeff Johnson, the Chief Deputy
at FCDC, in both his official and individual capacities.
complaint, Plaintiff writes as follows:
On June 26, 2017 approx 12:00 a few inmates covered the
window of [their cell] with toothpaste and paper so officers
could not see in. There was not a cell camera . . . The
inmate's broke lights, unbolted a table, and flooded the
cellblock with water. There was no way to identify who was
responsible or involved. Two officers each wrote incident
reports. They wrote up all 22 inmates me included from [the
cell]. [Defendant] Johnson was called in hours later state
police and local law enforcement gained entry to the
cellblock and restrained myself and 5 other African American
males. We were all put in isolation. I was isolated for a
month and a half. [Defendant] Johnson then wrote his own
incident report to the Department of Corrections and stated
we were disruptive. [Defendant] Johnson recommended that 6
inmates loose classification and meritorious good time to
prevent another occurrence. I was not responsible there was a
prejudice decision to assume we were responsible. I feel
violated. I have copies of the incident reports the two
officers wrote. Involved all 22 inmates and I have a copy of
[Defendant] Johnson report involving 6 African American
Plaintiff then continues his complaint as follows:
It was also a security risk to have 22 inmates in a cellblock
without a incell camera. If there was a camera he would know
who was involved and wouldn't have made assumptions.
Without proof, he demanded these six inmates to loose
goodtime and classification just assuming we were responsible
without proof and the Department of Corrections did take my
classification and goodtime for a year. Also the report
[Defendant] Johnson sent to the Department of Corrections has
kept me from going home in home incarceration program and the
mandatory reentry supervision program and stopped me from
receiving work credit. The reports that were written by the
two officers prove and shows that there was no idea who was
involved. They were wrote by Ashley Collier and Jamie
Alexander on June 26, 2017.
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
injunctive relief in the form of “restoration of good
time” and “expungement of record.”
prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a
governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court
must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of it, if the court determines that the complaint 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, 604 (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
omitted)). “But the district court need not accept a
‘bare assertion of legal conclusions.'”
Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia
Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th
Cir. 1995)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to
be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110
(6th Cir. 1991), “[o]ur duty to be ‘less
stringent' with pro se complaints does not require us to
conjure up unpled allegations.” McDonald v.
Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation
omitted). And this Court is not required to create a claim
for 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).