United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division
H. MCKINLEY JR., SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Joshua Simpson, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint. This matter is before the Court for
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199
(2007). For the reasons set forth below, the action will be
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
is a pretrial detainee at the Daviess County Detention Center
(DCDC). He names as Defendant DCDC. In the portion of the
§ 1983 complaint form in which to provide a statement of
his claims, Plaintiff states: “unsanitary conditions
(no soap, no sanitizer in bathroom)[;] no [illegible][;]
overcrowding cell/(18 man cell) (40 inmates)[;] privacy
issues(/no dividers) 2 toilets[;] eating on floor due to no
chairs available (30 inmates on floor)[;] health violations
(meds)[; and] fire hazards due to over population.” As
relief, Plaintiff requests “$500.00 daily
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 at 604.
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).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a pleading to
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”
Thus, Rule 8(a) “imposes legal and factual demands on
the authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd.,
P'Ship v. Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir.
2013) (emphasis in original). In other words, a
“complaint must contain either direct or inferential
allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a
recovery under some viable legal theory.” Scheid v.
Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th
Cir. 1988) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted);
see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 (“Rule
8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,' rather than a
blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief. Without some
factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a
claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only
‘fair notice' of the nature of the claim, but also
‘ground' on which the claim rests.”).
“A district court should not . . . be required to guess
or speculate about the basis of a plaintiff's civil
rights claim.” Cansler v. Henderson Co.
Police Dep't, No. 4:16-CV-P99-JHM, 2016 WL 6803104,
at *3 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2016).
this Court required to create a claim for Plaintiff.
Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d
1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). To do so 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).
Plaintiff fails to make a showing that he is entitled to
relief and fails to place Defendant on notice as to any
claim(s) against it. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema
N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (indicating that the
short and plain statement of claim must “‘give
the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests'”) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), abrogated
on other grounds by Twombly); see also Beaudett, 775
F.2d at 1278 (“Even in the case of pro se litigants,
the [courts] cannot be expected to construct full blown
claims from sentence fragments[.]”).
foregoing reasons, the Court will, by separate Order, ...