Crafton v. Earl et al, No. 1:2008cv00123 - Document 7 (W.D. Ky. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 1/13/2009; Because Plaintiff failed to establish jurisdiction, this action must be dismissed. The Court will enter an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (LMW)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT BOWLING GREEN JUNIOR RAY CRAFTON PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-CV-123-R JOSH EARL et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Junior Ray Crafton, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint (DN 1). This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS Plaintiff files his complaint on a court-supplied general complaint form. It is not a model of clarity. He states the grounds for filing his complaint as false subpoena, false charges, false imprisonment, withholding evidence, and still is? Changed a date something was supposed to happen, and making me pay for something I did not do. . . . He sues Josh Earl; prosecuting attorney Darris Russel; Attorneys Brent Yonts and Charles R. Elhschide; and Judge Brian Wiggins. He states that Josh Earl put false charges on him and that County Attorney Darris Russell had a false subpoena served on Plaintiff s friend and put false charges on him. He alleges that Attorneys Yonts and Elhschide committed malpractice while representing him on the false charges. He alleges that Judge Brian Wiggins denied me of statements and knowing that they changed the date. II. ANALYSIS Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the plaintiff must establish subject matter jurisdiction. Walburn v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 431 F.3d 966, 970 (6th Cir. 2005). Federal courts hear only cases allowed under the Constitution or cases which Congress has entrusted to them by statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Jurisdiction in this Court may be premised on a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ( The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ). Although not a model of clarity, Plaintiff has made no allegations of violations of the United States Constitution or federal law.1 Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the duty does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations. McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979). Additionally, this Court is not required to create a claim for Plaintiff. Clark v. Nat l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). In fact, to do so would require the courts to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 1 Even reading the complaint liberally to raise allegations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), Plaintiff s complaint would have to be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A judge performing judicial functions is absolutely immune from suit seeking monetary damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991). Similarly, any allegations of violations of federal rights by prosecuting attorney Darris Russell would also have to be dismissed. Lomaz v. Hennosy, 151 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 1998). There is nothing in the complaint to suggest that Josh Earl is a state actor, a necessary requirement for an action under § 1983. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 620 (1991). Moreover, defense counsel, like Yonts and Ehlschide, while acting in that capacity, are not state actors for purposes of § 1983. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). 2 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Consequently, jurisdiction in this case cannot be premised on federal-question jurisdiction. Jurisdiction for Plaintiff s complaint, which contains only state-law claims, cannot be premised on the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), as there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Under the diversity-of-citizenship statute, The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different states . . . . 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). [D]iversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.365, 373 (1978). Plaintiff, however, neither claims that the action exceeds $75,000 nor demonstrates that he and Defendants are citizens of a State other than Kentucky. Plaintiff s address and Defendants addresses are all in Kentucky. Consequently, Plaintiff cannot bring any state-law claims by way of the federal diversity statute. III. CONCLUSION Since Plaintiff has failed to establish this Court s jurisdiction, the instant action must be dismissed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) ( If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. ). The Court will enter an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. Date: January 13, 2009 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendants 4413.009 3

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.