United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro
H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge.
Terry Lee Gregory filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis.
This matter is before the Court on an initial review of the
complaint (DN 1), the amended complaint (DN 4), and the
second amended complaint (DN 7) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. For the reasons stated below, the Court
will dismiss the action.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
is a pretrial detainee at the Daviess County Detention
Center. He sues the following Defendants: McLean County
Circuit Judge Brian Wiggins; McClean County District Judge
Brian Crick; and Ralph D. Vick, the Commonwealth's
Attorney in McLean and Muhlenberg Counties. He sues
Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
second amended complaint,  Plaintiff states that on May 14, 2019,
in McLean County District Court, he was “racially
discriminated against and given an excessive bond of $1, 000
full cash and a $5, 000 full cash.” He asserts,
“My codefendant John M. Boring became a free man from
the judgement rendered by Judge Crick that day.” He
states that the evidence found in Boring's home, evidence
found in his pocket, and a statement from a confidential
source show that Boring was in “possession of a
handgun, loaded and being a convicted felon, baggie of meth
in his wallet, a baggie of marijuana in his pocket, marijuana
smoking pipe also in his pocket.” Plaintiff also states
that a gun magazine and ammunition were found in Boring's
bedroom and that a confidential source witnessed Boring
smoking meth with his underage son. Plaintiff states,
“John Boring is a caucasion male and he was a free man
after our bond hearing May 14th 2019 10 am in Judge
Crick's District Court Room and I was given those $1000,
and $5000 full cash bonds.” He continues, “Now
what was recovered from my person was: usb drive, $246,
pocket knife, pointer/pen[;] in my vehicle was found my
business bag w/ 2 laptops, my business license, drone w/
controller, and a secret hiding can. NO DRUGS, NO GUNS, NO
Bullets. And I am an African American.”
further states that he has felony charges pending from an
earlier case in Daviess County. He states, “But Judge
Wiggins on July 1st justifies my bond remaining the same
because of it . . . .” He states that there was
“no evidence of any wrong doing other than my showing
up at the home of John Boring while his house is being raided
by Coomes and the [McClean County Sheriff's
Office].” Plaintiff maintains, “With all the
factual evidence provided it is within reason to believe I
was given an excessive bond(s) that was given on part or
whole racialy biased judgement and discriminated
also states, “I have become a target in light of my
suite against McLean County Sheriff Major Coomes.” He
asserts that he sent a letter to Defendant Wiggins telling
him that he believed that he was being racially discriminated
against and “would aggressively persue legal recourse
against him and his court . . .” and that he would seek
a change of venue in the state criminal action. Plaintiff
states that after Defendant Wiggins received the letter he
was given new charges. He states that this is an act of
regard to Defendant Vick, in the first amended complaint,
Plaintiff states, “On 7-1-19 Commonwealth Atty Ralph D.
Vick suggested my bond remain the same and Circuit Court
Judge Brian Wiggins agreed.”
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
requests that all charges to be dropped.
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]
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).