United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
ARTURO CORDOVA, JR. Plaintiff
DEPUTY GRANT, et al. Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
REBECCA GRADY JENNINGS, DISTRICT JUDGE, UNITED STATES
Arturo Cordova, Jr., 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 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915A. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will give Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend his complaint.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
a pretrial detainee at the Hardin County Detention Center
(HCDC), sues the following Defendants, whom he identifies as
deputies at HCDC: Grant, Macmahan, Watts, Cooper, and Casey.
He sues each Defendant in his or her individual and official
states, “I am not really clear of what happen. But, I
know that I have been told from medical staff and other
inmates that I was beat and tazed with accesif force. I would
like for a reveiw of cameras . . . to see if any of my rights
was violated.” He states that he was “charged
with 3rd degree assulte when I fill that my rights was
violated with accessiful force.” He states that other
inmates witnessed the alleged beating. He further asserts
that a guard told him that “the cell should never have
been extracted. Because sticking hand in toilet was no harm
to myself or anyone else.” As relief, Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages.
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).
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
complaint “shall contain . . . a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). While the Court is
aware of its duty to construe pro se complaints
liberally, Plaintiff is not absolved of his duty to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by providing
Defendants with “fair notice of the basis for his
claims.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S.
506, 514 (2002). To state a claim for relief, Plaintiff must
show how each Defendant is accountable because the Defendant
was personally involved in the acts about which he complains.
See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375-76 (1976).
Plaintiff names five Defendants in the complaint form, but
his statement of the claim does not allege how any Defendant
was personally involved in the events alleged. Therefore, the
complaint is subject to dismissal.
before dismissing the action, the Court will direct Plaintiff
to file an amended complaint stating specific factual
allegations as to how each Defendant allegedly violated his
rights. See LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951
(6th Cir. 2013) (“[U]nder Rule 15(a) a district court
can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint even when the
complaint is subject to dismissal under the [Prison
Litigation Reform Act].”).
IT IS ORDERED that within 30
days from the entry date of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order, Plaintiff must file an amended
complaint. He must include all
claims he wishes to assert in this action as the
amended complaint will supersede the
original complaint. Plaintiff must state the specific factual
allegations which he believes support his claim against each
individual defendant. The Court will conduct initial review
of the amended complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to place the
instant case number and word “Amended” on a
§ 1983 complaint form and send it to Plaintiff for his
is WARNED that should he fail to file an amended complaint
within 30 days, the Court will enter an Order dismissing the
action for the reasons stated herein and ...