Roca v. Bolton et al, No. 3:2010cv00024 - Document 6 (W.D. Ky. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 6/25/2010. For the reasons set forth, the excessive-force claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (AEP)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV-24-H SERGIO J. ROCA PLAINTIFF v. MARK BOLTON et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Sergio J. Roca filed a pro se, in forma pauperis civil complaint. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered May 19, 2010, the Court conducted an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (DN 5). Upon review, the Court dismissed all claims, except for the excessive-force claim. With respect to that claim against all LMDC employees, Plaintiff claimed that all of the corruped CO s [] attacked, assaulted, [and] tried to kill [him] while [he] was in LMDC in the mental health unit on the 2nd and 3rd floor of the jail from 10/6/09 to 11/17/09 and 12/7/09 to 12/18/09. Plaintiff, however, failed to name specific officers who allegedly harmed him, to specify the circumstances surrounding how he was harmed, and, most importantly, to allege any injury as a result of the alleged wrongdoing. The Court, therefore, concluded that Plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim against all LMDC employees but provided Plaintiff with 30 days in which to amend the complaint to describe the alleged incidents more specifically and to name those corrections officers who allegedly attacked and assaulted him. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amendment within the time allotted would result in dismissal of this claim for failure to set forth a cognizable constitutional claim. The response time has expired, and a review of the record reveals that Plaintiff has failed to file any amendment to the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the excessive-force claim is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Date: June 25, 2010 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4412.005 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.