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.

Buchanan v. U.S. Government

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green

December 20, 2018

JOHN BUCHANAN PLAINTIFF
v.
U.S. GOVERNMENT DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          GREG N. STIVERS, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         Plaintiff John Buchanan initiated this pro se civil action. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss this action.

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a handwritten complaint. The complaint states as follows:

This U.S. DISTRICT Court claim being made after acting upon instruction's given from first claim taken on 6-18-2016. Claim number 116cv-92gns.[1], [2]
These are the instruction's; claim cannot be made until first making application to ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS for relief.
These instructions were acted upon. An application was made to the ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. A request for lump sum check to be given me because of serve with Department of Correction's inmate number 119031.
I was not replyed to an answer was not received from the ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE and no lump sum check sent. It has been over 1 year. I applied in June 2017.
STATEMENT: The U.S. GOVERNMENT did not pay me lump sum check this after serve with Department of Correction's dates: 7-20-1993 to 4-15-2014.
Dated: 9-18-2018, Amount: $120, 000.

         Plaintiff also attached a supplement to his complaint which states: “The reason I was late applying for my lump sum check, I wrote to several government offices for information on what I should do to receive check I got no reply from these. In June of 2014 I had a heart attack . . . I kept trying to figure out what to do, resorted to claim with District Court. I was told what to do then, apply Admin Office.”

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). On review, 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).

         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 ...


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.