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.

Strong v. Kemper

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

February 13, 2019

PAUL DAVID STRONG, Plaintiff,
v.
SHERRY KEMPER, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DAVID J. HALE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a convicted prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff Paul David Strong 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, this action will be dismissed.

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections. He completed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form to initiate this action. On this form, Plaintiff names Sherry Kemper as the only Defendant and indicates that she is a “CPA (currently disabled)” at Merrill Lynch.

         In the “Statement of Claims” section of the form, Plaintiff states as follows:

On April 5th, 2018 I was released on HIP in Jefferson County, Ky. Ms. Sherry Kemper signed the 72 hr form stating there was no firearms on the premises at 4110 Sirate Ln Louisville, Ky 40229.
On April 6th, 2018 I had my personal property brought to the above address . . . .
On April 19th the HIP officer did a home visit in which firearms and narcotics were found on premises I was immediately arrested. Firearms were registered to a Sherry Kemper. Upon my arrest, my personal property (listed) remained on premises at above address in the care of Sherry Kemper. I have body camera footage of property from officers doing home visit.
Sherry Kemper has failed to come forward with property as well as telling detectives that property was stolen. So its my understanding that her home owners' insurance should cover property (listed): . . .

         Plaintiff then lists several items, including vehicles, a riding lawn mower, a car stereo, laptops, motorcycle helmets, jackets, and a chainsaw.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a “lien against property at 4110 Sirate Ln Louisville, Ky 40229.”

         II. LEGAL 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 ...


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.