United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
GENE DESHAWN M. WATKINS, Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HORN BOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Gene Deshawn M. Watkins filed the instant pro se
action. He also filed an application to proceed without the
prepayment of fees [R. 2], which is GRANTED.
For the reasons stated below, the action will be dismissed
for failure to meet the pleading standard under Fed.R.Civ.P.
8 and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under
filed his complaint on the Court-approved general complaint
form for filing a civil case. [R. 1] In the caption, he lists
B96.5 as the only Defendant. The rest of the complaint form
is left blank except for Plaintiff's signature.
same date Plaintiff filed the complaint, he filed a motion
which he captioned as a motion for “Defamation,
emotional stress mental stress.” [R. 4] The Court
construes the motion as a motion to amend the complaint and
GRANTS the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1).
Where the motion form asks the filer to state the relief
requested, Plaintiff states, “Defamation, criminal
intent, extortion, interferin in a federal investigation,
obstruction conspiracy, racial discrimination.” As
grounds for his motion, Plaintiff states the following:
This has inflicted great hardship on me in 02 or 03 I was
called an Algerian terrorist by B96.5 and I served in the
military I am a vet and I never been to Africa that
defamation and than B96.5 knew rappers was comin to
Louisville on the under to cause problems they came w/
federal agents and the agents was corrupt they was bein
extorted by NBC and I thought it was the mob but NBC is the
mob to me they the legit mob for 20 yrs plus I have been
watched by this radio station they watched how I struggled
over 2 decades all bcuz B96.5 was takin top secret gov
information from federal agents this has caused me mental
stress emotional stress cuz B96.5 knew about me for 2 decades
and said nothin about me only I was terrorist I wrote my
rhymes in Algerian font and passed it out in the parkhill
neighborhood and it got to B96.5 and they took the privilage
in callin me an Algerian terrorist which brought the Feds on
me now I am being sexually assaulted by invisible federal
agents plus I make women have orgasms w/o touchin it transmit
threw gov equipment which B96.5 knew by me . . .
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 (1972). The duty to be less stringent with pro
se complaints, however, “does not require [the
Court] to conjure up unpled allegations, ” McDonald
v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation
omitted), and the Court is not required to create a claim for
a pro se plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l Travelers
Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To
command otherwise would require the “courts 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).
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief
in the alternative or different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “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.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). “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.'” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). Conclusory
allegations or bare legal conclusions will not suffice as
factual allegations. See Followell v. Mills, 317
Fed.Appx. 501, 505 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Conclusory
allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
allegations will not suffice.”); Gregory v. Shelby
Cty., Tenn., 220 F.3d 433, 446 (6th Cir. 2000)
(“[W]e need not accept as true legal conclusions or
unwarranted factual inferences.”).
the Court's review of the complaint and amendment,
Plaintiff makes broad allegations of defamation by the
Defendant radio station and corruption by federal agents.
However, the complaint and amendment do not state coherent
allegations to establish the Court's jurisdiction, to
show that Plaintiff is entitled to relief, or to state any
claim for the relief ...