United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
Rebecca Grady Jennings, District Judge
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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
relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary and punitive damages and
“Any and All relief entitled/offered-settlement.”
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).
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