Profitt v. Hall et al, No. 3:2010cv00338 - Document 4 (W.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 06/01/2010; order of dismissal to enter. cc:plaintiff (CSD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE MIKE J. PROFITT v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV-338-R D. HALL et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Mike J. Profitt initiated this pro se action by filing a Court-approved form. As Defendants in the caption, he names D. Hall and Carolyn Lamn. In the parties section of the form, he names Pamela Anderson, Wayne Townsend, Ernest Lee Fox, and Gregory Allen, among other names which are illegible. As grounds for filing this suit in federal court, Plaintiff alleges, At Bel-Air Tommy Lee [and] Pamela Anderson had the check-In Cashierest Admit to owner of Bel-Air Motel [and] he said Mirror Admittance beat me up in the hall [and] had illegal polic transfer me to louisville for A guilty plea Tim Riley Fayette County arrest from Federal Building downtown with AE Arrest. Much of the statement-of-claim section of the complaint form is incoherent, incomprehensible, and disjointed. He seems to primarily claim that [t]here trying to kill Mike Profitt For Osam-Bin-Laden for Illegal Cash in Pakistan [and] Illegal President Admitting Bust A Central State Hospital. As relief, he seeks: My D. Doolya Treasury check ; 200 million kings for Illegal [illegible . . .] ; among other illegible relief. The Sixth Circuit has held that a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). Upon consideration, the Court concludes that Plaintiff s allegations meet this standard. By separate Order, therefore, the Court will dismiss the instant action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Date: June 1, 2010 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4413.005 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.
