McBee v. Campbell County Detention Center et al, No. 2:2017cv00038 - Document 6 (E.D. Ky. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) McBee's complaint in this action ( 1 at 15-16) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 2) McBee's motion preliminary injunction 3 is DENIED AS MOOT; 3) This action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket; 4) A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 8/10/2017.(ECO)cc: Copy of Memorandum Opinion and Order mailed to Richard McBee, pro se Plf, at address listed on the docket sheet
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McBee v. Campbell County Detention Center et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION at COVINGTON RICHARD MCBEE, Plaintiff, v. CAMPBELL CO. DET. CENTER, et al., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2: 17-38-WOB MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER *** *** *** *** In 2016, plaintiff Richard McBee filed a pro se civil rights complaint in this Court asserting over a dozen claims loosely related to the ongoing criminal prosecution against him and to the conditions of his confinement at the Campbell County Detention Center. [R. 1]. The Court conducted a preliminary review of McBee’s complaint and determined that he improperly alleged multiple distinct claims against several different defendants in one case. [R. 4]. While the Court resolved some of those claims, it severed the remaining claims from McBee’s complaint and directed the Clerk of the Court to open new civil actions in which those unrelated claims could be resolved. [R. 4]. This case is one of those new civil actions, and it involves only McBee’s claim that the defendants failed to provide him with a Kosher diet and, thus, violated his First Amendment rights, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and various provisions of state law. [R. 1 at 15-16, 29]. McBee has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding this issue. [R. 3]. -1- Dockets.Justia.com The Court, however, will deny McBee’s claims without prejudice because he has not provided any substance to his one conclusory allegation—that the diet he received and was apparently identified as Kosher was not truly Kosher. [R. 1 at 15-16]. For example, McBee does not describe with any particularity his religious dietary needs, the actual food that was provided to him, and what injuries he suffered. Simply put, McBee has given the Court very little to go on and, for that reason, the Court will dismiss his claims without prejudice. That said, McBee is certainly welcome to file a new complaint in which he provides the Court with more information regarding the basis for his religious-based claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. McBee’s complaint in this action [R. 1 at 15-16] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. McBee’s motion for a preliminary injunction [R. 3] is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. 4. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. This 10th day of August, 2017. -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.
