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.

Williams v. Hardin County Det. Ctr.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

February 11, 2019

ROBERT LEON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
HARDIN COUNTY DET. CTR. et al., Defendants.

          Plaintiff, pro se Defendants Hardin County Attorney

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          David J. Hale Judge

         Plaintiff 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.

         I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

         Plaintiff 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 him.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gunter conducted an investigation one month after he received the write-up.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 him.

         As relief, Plaintiff asks for $10, 000, 000.

         II. ANALYSIS

         When a 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).

         A. Claims against Defendants Lewis, Reynolds, Gunter, ...


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.