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.

Morris v. Bolton

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

February 12, 2019

CLIFFORD D. MORRIS Plaintiff
v.
MARK BOLTON, et al. Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Rebecca Grady Jennings, District Judge United States District Court

         Plaintiff Clifford D. Morris filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis. The complaint is now before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the action upon screening.

         I. SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (LMDC) at the time he filed his complaint, [1] sues the following Defendants: Mark Bolton, the Director of LMDC; Jefferson Circuit Court Judges Susan Gibson and Ann Delhaney; and Dr. Russell Williams, whom he identifies as a “Psy. D.” He sues all Defendants in both their individual and official capacities.

         Plaintiff states that in “August 2016 and each court date I made their forward in 2016 in Judge Ann D. court Rm 101, I ask for counsel be replaced that I fire Kalson Chan off my case because didn't file compency test, fast and speedy trial motion in my case.” He reports that “Ann D. stated he wouldn't be replaced and don't take rocket docket deal you'll not like out come escape II in court August 2016.” Plaintiff asserts that this violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

         Plaintiff also states, “12-2-16, 1-26-17, 7-17-17 Judge Susan G. allowed Kalson Chan to remain on my case's after fired him in court hearings.” He asserts, “This violates my C/R 6, 8, 14th Amendment by Kalson C and Susan G. . . .”

         Plaintiff further states the following:

On 2-11-17 Dr. Williams and Dr. Eye do compency test at LMDC gym room for 3 hours of testing. With me fully compling with both doctors. They leave saying be back in March with test results, next time see Dr. Williams is on 5-3-17 at [Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center] day room after I refuse visit him security violated my 8th Amendment by allowing Dr. to come inside unit. I refused speak and said fire Kalson. I refuse visit Dr 7-15-17 LMDC security violates C/R 8th Amend by letting him in to unit I refuse talk & said [illegible] them. 9-11-17 compency hearing Susan G violated my C/R 6, 8, 14th Amendment by allowing Chan. Dr. Williams manipulate my right to represent myself and allow them hold hearing after fired them. Dr. Allen testified I was comptent 9-11-17 and my second trip to KCPC on hearing date 3-12-18, Kalson, Susan, Dr. Williams manipulated my C/R 6, 8, 14th Amendment and sent me back for 3rd compency at KCPC.

         Plaintiff asserts, “Security & Mark Bolton allowed Dr on 2-19-18 after refused visit Dr. Williams again. Susan, Kalson, Dr. Williams my KCPC trip has been cruel treatment, and Dr. Allen prove comptent 9-11-17 and 3-12-18 and last trip 7-13-18.” He continues, “Susan, Kalson Dr. Williams violates my C/R 6, 8, 14th Amendment that keep me in jail.” Plaintiff further states, “Mark Bolton has played roll in keeping me incarcerated by security allowing Dr. Williams into LMDC 7-15-17 and 2-19-18 after refuse visit him both dates. Mark violates my C/R 8th Amendment that keeps me incarcerated.” As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and “released on O/R bonds all charges Circuit District.”

         II. STANDARD

         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 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).

         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 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).

         Although 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).

         III. ...


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.