Lawrence v. Eastern State Hospital et al, No. 2:2018cv00189 - Document 6 (E.D. Ky. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) Lawrence's complaint 2 is DISMISSED with prejudice; 2) This matter is STRICKEN from the docket; 3) The Court will enter a Judgment. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 11/9/2018.(TJZ)cc: COR, Jason Lawrence via US Mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lawrence v. Eastern State Hospital et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-189-DLB JASON LEE LAWRENCE VS. PLAINTIFF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS *** *** *** *** Jason Lee Lawrence is a resident of Covington, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Lawrence filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. #2). Lawrence’s submission, however, contains nothing more than an unintelligible, handwritten statement in which he says, among other things: I started to hear the sattelight of remote neural monitoring, which I Looked up on google and got treated very very poorly charges ranging From attempted murder 3 or more times using drugs and the sattelight wich is a deadly weapon which they have there own. 40 to 80 accounts of Defamition of character, cruel and unusual punishment neglect assault with a deadly weapon. . . . (Doc. #2 at 2). Lawrence’s complaint continues with similar statements. (Doc. #2 at 2-3). Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where the allegations contained within it 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). Even affording Lawrence’s complaint the liberal construction to which pro se 1 Dockets.Justia.com pleadings are entitled, the Court concludes that his allegations are of this nature. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (indicating that “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios” are subject to sua sponte dismissal). The Court will therefore dismiss Lawrence’s complaint. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Lawrence’s complaint (Doc. #2) is DISMISSED with prejudice; 2. This matter is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket; and 3. The Court will enter an appropriate Judgment. This 9th day of November, 2018. K:\DATA\ORDERS\ProSe\18-189 MOO Dismissing Complaint.docx 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.
