Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Clark v. Jameson

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky

July 30, 2019




         Plaintiff Jerry L. Clark, Jr., filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint proceeding in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court upon initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss some of Plaintiff's claims and will allow him to amend his complaint with regard to one of the Defendants.

         Plaintiff originally filed a complaint on his own paper. By prior Order (DN 3), the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the Court-approved form, instructing that the amended complaint would supersede the original complaint. The docket sheet lists as Defendants the Calloway County Public Defender's Office and Attorney Cheri Riedell. Because Plaintiff does not name these two parties as Defendants in the amended complaint, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to terminate them as parties to this action.


         Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Calloway County Jail. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Judge James T. Jameson, a Calloway County Circuit Judge; Angel Clere, a detective with the City of Murray Police Department; “James Burkeen Commonwealth's Attorney Office, ” a prosecutor; and Ken Claud, the Calloway County Jailer. He sues Defendants Jameson and Burkeen in their individual and official capacities. He sues Defendants Clere and Claud in their official capacities only.

         Plaintiff states that on March 27, 2019, Defendant Jameson violated his constitutional rights by “making the racial comment that the best way he knows to discribe me is like ‘Ray Charles . . . country dumb' this is a racist comment and the Constitution protects me from such discrimination.” Plaintiff states that Defendant Jameson violated his right to freedom of speech “as I tried to assert my rights by repeatedly saying to me; Denied . . . anything else? Denied Mr. Clark . . . anything else? Denied . . . I denied everything you'v[e] brought up is there anything else . . .?! This is professional misconduct by a judge.” Plaintiff further states that Defendant Jameson violated his Sixth Amendment rights, his right to a trial by jury, and his right to due process. He states, “I'm being held for a crime that was dismissed at my preliminary hearing in district court, thus without being allowed to bring this issue up in court. This abridges the priviledges or immunities of the People of the United States and denying me the equal protection of the laws.”

         Plaintiff states that he is suing Defendant Clere for violation of his Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. He states that Defendant Clere “admitted in her statement that she knew the property that she searched outside of my co-defendant's home belonged to me. She searched it without my consent or a warrant and obtained evidence illegally which was used to charge me with 2nd degree burglary.”

         Plaintiff further asserts that he is suing Defendant Burkeen for “1. 6th Amen. violation, 2. violation of the Constitution Article 6 oaths of office, 3. double jeopardy, 4. abuse of power, 5. discrimination, and 6. prosecutorial misconduct.” Plaintiff states, “The charge of 2nd degree burglary was dismissed by the district court judge of Calloway Co. KY. The Commonwealths office then with disregard for the district courts ruling took the burglary to the Grand Jury and had me indicted on the case that was dismissed at preliminary hearing.” He continues, “I was never formally charged nor served an indictment by the Grand Jury, nor have I been arraigned and this now 9 months later.” He states, “I was totally unaware of this until some 63 days after the grand jury met and had no court date (I was doing 90 days for an unrelated charge) until I had my family call the court clerk and then I was given a court date well after 60 days.” Plaintiff states that he is also suing the Commonwealth's Attorney Office and Defendant Jameson for violation of the 9th Amendment.

         Plaintiff also maintains that he is suing Defendant Claud “for unlawful detention and 4th Amen. violation for having me seized illegally in the Calloway Jail for as of now 9 months for the charge of 2nd degree burglary.” He states, “I was serving a 90 day sentence for a misdemeanor and when the 90 days was expired the Jail refused to release me and has continued to hold me unlawfully without arrest.”

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.


         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] 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)). 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).

         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.