United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
Plaintiff, pro se Defendants Hardin County Attorney
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. HALE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
a pro se civil-rights action brought by a pretrial
detainee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is
before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
dismiss some claims but allow Plaintiff the opportunity to
amend his complaint.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Michael Brunello is incarcerated at the Hardin County
Detention Center (HCDC). He names as Defendants HCDC Jailer
Josh Lindbalm; Lt. Col. Allan New; Captain David Kineline;
and Nurse Practitioner Christy Curry. He sues these Defendants in
both their official and individual capacities.
complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
I have been subjected to crueal and unsuel punishment since
May First 2019 at HCDC; was put in solitary confinement but
did not break any rules or have any disciplinary actions Then
on May 7th was moved to super max and on the
13th was locked down with all privalegies taken
away but I did nothing wrong: was on lockdown for 19 days
with no privalegies. On May 10th when I went to
court: got no lunch. I got no help for my mental health after
putting in losts of requests and grivenies. I have been
denied my right to law library; was seen by the syc and she
said can't give u any meds for your depression or
As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages
and his “charges dismissed.”
Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental
entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review
the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under §
1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the Court
determines that it 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
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)). “[A] pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)). However, while liberal, this standard of review does
require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions.
See Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum,
58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995). The Court's duty
“does not require [it] 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 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).
1983 creates no substantive rights but merely provides
remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere.
Flint ex rel. Flint v. Ky. Dep't of Corr., 270
F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir. 2001). Two elements are required to
state a claim under § 1983. Gomez v. Toledo,
446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). “A plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state
law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
“Absent either element, a section 1983 claim will not
lie.” Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d
502, 504 (6th Cir. 1991).
SEGREGATION AND ...