United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. Hale, Judge United States District Court
Jared Andrews filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff filed an original complaint naming as Defendants
Scott Jordan, the Warden of Luther Luckett Correctional
Complex (LLCC), and John Does 1 and 2. The complaint was not
filed on the Court's approved § 1983 complaint form.
By prior Order (DN 10), the Court directed Plaintiff to file
an amended complaint on the Court-approved § 1983
complaint form. The Court directed Plaintiff to
“include all claims he wishes to assert, state all
facts relevant to his claims, and name as Defendants all
individuals whom he believes violated his rights” and
informed him that the amended complaint would supersede the
amended complaint names only Defendant Jordan in the portion
of the complaint form where Defendants are to be listed.
Therefore, the Court construes Defendant Jordan as the only
Defendant in this case. IT IS ORDERED that
John Does 1 and 2 are DISMISSED as parties
to this case.
amended 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
a convicted inmate now housed in the Northpoint Training
Center, sues Defendant Jordan in his individual and official
capacities. Plaintiff states that while housed at the LLCC he
was taking a shower. He states, “During the course of
my shower two correctional officers were videotaping me. They
were making fun of my genital area and made me feel
uncomfortable.” He maintains that he reported the
incident and went through the grievance process. He asserts,
“To the present day nothing has been done about the
situation and the commissioner with the Dept. of Corrections
stated they videotaped me in the shower. I have been having
low self esteem and in which has messed with my mind.”
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
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).
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).
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). To
command otherwise would require the Court “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 role of an
advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most
successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v.
City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Court construes the amended complaint as alleging a §
1983 claim for violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment
right to privacy against Defendant Jordan in his official and