United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
THOMAS A. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
HARDIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al., Defendants.
J. Hale, Judge United States District Court
a pro se civil rights action brought by a pretrial
detainee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has
granted Plaintiff Thomas A. Robinson 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 this action.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
is incarcerated at the Hardin County Detention Center (HCDC).
He brings this action against three Defendants - HCDC and
HCDC Deputies Shawn Cooper and Aaron Hardy.
complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
On 12/17/17, a call was made to a 911 dispatcher made myself
for a possible overdose. I was very “lethargic”
in a statement that Sergeant Damon Lasley said himself. I was
in fear for my own life feeling very incoherent and
hysterical. With all officer and deputy statements it is
clear that I was not in a reasonable “state of
then states that he was ultimately charged with illegal
possession, escape, possession, and disorderly conduct.
Plaintiff indicates that he believes that his prosecution for
these crimes violates Ky. Rev. Stat. § 218A.133, which
is titled “Exemption from Prosecution for Possession of
Controlled Substance or Drug Paraphernalia if Seeking
Assistance with Drug Overdose.”
relief, Plaintiff seeks “HCDC Housing Fees” and
“Case Dismissal/Apology Letter.”
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 608 (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]
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
(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 Nat. 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 a 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 section 1983 claim will not
lie.” Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504
(6th Cir. 1991).
Court construes Plaintiff's complaint as attempting to
state a claim for malicious prosecution. This claim, however,
fails for several reasons. First, the entity and the
individuals Plaintiff has named as Defendants in this action
- HCDC and two HCDC deputies - are not responsible for his
criminal prosecution. Thus, they are not proper parties to
this action. See, e.g., Murphy v. Grenier,