United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge
Laura Weedman 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.
initiated this action by filing a general civil complaint
form. She names as Defendant Officer Matt Johnson of the
Bullitt County Police Department.
section of the form which asks the filer to state the basis
for federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff writes: “Officer
gave false information to the grand jury to get an indictment
on my husband .”
states that the “amount in controversy” is
“$22, 000 for unnecessary 11 days in jail plus for drug
test and for mental anguish for my husband being away from me
and our family.”
“Statement of Claim” section Plaintiff writes:
Due to Defendant  falsely arresting my husband and daughter
in a vehicle not in either one of their names I had to be
taken away from them for 11 days. I inquired multiply
harships . . . . [Defendant] got my daughter  out first
which was passenger wanting to search car which was not hers
and then just told my husband to get out he was searching the
car. My husband  borrowed the car to take my grandkids back
to their foster parents. He borrowed the car from  the
father of the children he was taking back . . . This case has
been going on since Oct. 21, 2017, and just keeps getting
laid over. This has caused me and my husband not to be able
to see our grandchildren for almost a year now. My
husband still on bond has never failed a drug test.
“Relief” section of the complaint form, Plaintiff
states: “That these charges be dropped against my
husband  and get $12, 000.00 for him being in jail for 11
days get reimbursed for all drug test and $10, 000 for being
away from me and pain and suffering.”
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
must review this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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).
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
courts are to hold pro se pleadings “to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,
” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this
duty to be less stringent “does not require us to
conjure up unpled allegations, ” McDonald v.
Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a
claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l
Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir.
1975). To command otherwise would require courts “to
explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro
se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district
court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper ...