United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
Plaintiff, pro se Defendants Hardin County Attorney
J. Hale Judge
Robert Leon Williams filed a pro se, in forma
pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. This matter is
before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th
Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the following reasons,
the complaint will be dismissed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
is housed at the Hardin County Detention Center (HCDC). He
names as Defendants HCDC and in their individual and official
capacities the following HCDC employees: Corporals Lewis and
Gunter; Captain Reynolds; Lieutenant McDowell; Sergeant
Majors Noe and Hayden; and Jailer Danny Allen. Plaintiff
alleges that on May 27, 2018, he was moved to segregation for
ten days because an investigation was being conducted
regarding an assault on another inmate. He states that he was
told the next day that he had been found guilty of the
assault and given a “Category 4.1” write up. He
also states that he was told that the Commonwealth Attorney
was considering whether to bring criminal charges against
states that he told Defendant Lewis that the alleged assault
victim had had a seizure and he tried to help him. Plaintiff
states that Defendant Lewis told him that he had reviewed the
video footage and had seen Plaintiff fighting with the
victim. Plaintiff states that he asked to view the video
footage, but he was denied.
next alleges that on July 2, 2018, Defendant Reynolds
confirmed that Plaintiff had been found guilty of the
assault. Defendant Reynolds also told him that he had
reviewed the write-up and submitted it to the Department of
Corrections. Plaintiff states that he requested an appeal
because he had received no due process. He also alleges that
the false charges against him pose a threat to his good-time
credits and the possibility of parole.
alleges that Defendant Gunter conducted an investigation one
month after he received the write-up.
alleges that Defendants McDowell, Noe, and Hayden did not
allow him to see the video footage, did not give him a
Miranda warning, and did not allow him to produce
witnesses. He further alleges that Defendant Reynolds told
him that if he filed this § 1983 action he “would
regret it” and that criminal charges would be pressed.
He alleges that Defendant Allen, as Jailer, must be
knowledgeable about the activities at HCDC.
states that on August 28, 2018, the Parole Board gave him a
24-month deferment due to poor institutional adjustment and
assaultive behavior based on the false accusation against
relief, Plaintiff asks for $10, 000, 000.
prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a
governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court
must review the complaint and dismiss the action, 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). A
claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Id. at 327. When determining
whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can
be granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light
most favorable to Plaintiff and accept all of the factual
allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside,
Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). While a
reviewing court must liberally construe pro se
pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must
include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Claims against Defendants Lewis, Reynolds, Gunter, ...