Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carr v. Pfaffenberger

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

January 14, 2020

THOMAS JEWELL CARR Plaintiff
v.
HANS PFAFFENBERGER, et al. Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Rebecca Grady Jennings, District Judge

         This matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff Thomas Jewell Carr's pro se, in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the action will be dismissed.

         I.

         Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee incarcerated in the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following Defendants: “Fraud-experienced Attorney Hans Pfaffenberger, ” public defender; Prosecutor Victoria Borders, Assistant Jefferson County Attorney; Honorable Jefferson County Judge Anne Haynie; Honorable Jefferson County Judge Jessica A. Moore; and “Expert-witness/Detective Sarah Mantle” of the Louisville Metro Police Department. Plaintiff fails to allege the capacity in which he sues Defendant Judge Haynie, but sues all other Defendants in their official capacities.

         Plaintiff alleges that a probable-cause hearing was held on April 9, 2019, and a revocation proceeding was held on May 17, 2019. He claims that his public defender, Defendant Pfaffenberger, “asked to ‘withdraw'” three times in March 2019, and on May 17, 2019, “as well complaint's being made of ‘a conflict of interest' but all (Denied) by [Defendant Judge] Moore; followed by claiming his (Law-firm) say there is no-conflict.” Plaintiff further claims that Defendant Pfaffenberger “neglected to call witness and ‘submit' to prosecutors” (emphasis omitted).

         In addition, Plaintiff alleges, “on DVD, i witnessed Judge Anne Haynie, Prosecutor Victoria-Borders and fraud-attorney have a discussion upon ‘themselves without my presence' (before) entering the courtroom, stating i would ‘later' be (Exonerated) from charges-but i will be held for ‘abscond' since Aug. 2018. Fabricated-charges to ‘swindle' wrongful-conviction. (conspiracy).” He claims that on April 9, 2019, Defendant Pfaffenberger “along with (accomplice's) conducted a ‘scheming-proceeding' during a ‘probable-cause hearing.'” He then seems to indicate that some type of court order was entered and that the “court-order was later ‘inconsistently-changed' (after) clear-order's being made to me ‘directly' from Judge Anne Haynie; stating on this date and time i was not-allowed: to call any-witnesses to testify on my-behalf, present any-evidence on my-behalf.” He also alleges that the “Prosecutor and Expert-witness falsely-testified under oath.”

         Plaintiff further alleges as follows:

Judge Anne Haynie, (Also) had the knowledge of my testifying-witness present because “not-only” did prosecutor Victoria-Borders ask to have her (removed - Before PAC Hearing) but Fraud-Attorney Hans Pfaffenberger called her to testify during P.C Hearing but was (Denied). Judge Haynie “neglected” to call witness in her role of the (scheme) “intentionally.”
After Hearing (inconsistently-approved) []no-probation-officer present to testify, Judge Anne Haynie (Denied) to revoke my probation at the time as her role, and instead (wrote a note) to Judge Jessica A. Moore, to play her part in the (scheme) by returning from her “Spring-Break” with (no-knowledge of Jurisdiction-Notice of case# 18-m-006567-no-contact order violated by alleged-victim Tara Edwards, no-knowledge testimony and evidence presented at P.C Hearing, her role was to (read the note from Judge Anne Haynie; stating (if) indicted; (Based-soley off testimony and evidence introduced by scheme-team), the court shall “revoke” probation. Judge Jessica A. Moore “Revoked” on 5-17-2019 due to the fact's of the scheme. (organized-crime), (fraud).
More “Fraud-after indictment.” Judge Anne Haynie (Dismissed Wanton-endangerment, but after indicted-charges consisted of (4) added-charge's as well (3) count's of wanton-endangerment 1st and PFO I, as well (disposal “of evidence”) from case #18-m-006567 involving no-contact order as well #18-m-006567 case dismissed/revoked from docket-legal-proceeding's.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary and punitive damages and “Any and All relief entitled/offered-settlement.”

         II.

         Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the 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. § 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).

         A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. 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 (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)). “A pleading that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.