Heath v. Brown et al, No. 3:2014cv00256 - Document 6 (W.D. Ky. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court will, by separate Order, dismiss Plaintiffs complaint as frivolous.cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants; Jefferson county Attorney (SG)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE SHY LAMONT HEATH PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-256-H WILLIAM BROWN et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Shy Lamont Heath, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed. I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS Plaintiff sues Louisville Police Detectives William Brown, Steve Kaufling, and Dominique Fearon; former police chief Robert White; and Sergeant Brain Nunn. He alleges that his civil rights were violated on July 26, 2006, and November 14, 2009. He asks for monetary and punitive damages. II. ANALYSIS This Court must review the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 604-05. Upon review, this Court must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. When determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000). While a reviewing court must liberally construe pro se pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Because § 1983 does not provide a statute of limitations, federal courts borrow the forum state s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 275280 (1985). Thus, in Kentucky, § 1983 actions are limited by the one-year statute of limitations found in KY. REV. STAT. § 413.140(1)(a). Collard v. Ky. Bd. of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179, 182 (6th Cir. 1990). [T]he statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action and . . . a plaintiff has reason to know of his injury when he should have discovered it through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Id. at 183. Though the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a court may raise the issue sua sponte if the defense is obvious from the face of the complaint. Fields v. Campbell, 39 F. App x 221, 223 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Haskell v. Washington Twp., 864 F.2d 1266, 1273 (6th Cir. 2 1988)). Here, Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 17, 2014, well after the one-year limitations period had run. Since Plaintiff s complaint was filed outside the limitations period, all of his claims will be dismissed as frivolous, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court will, by separate Order, dismiss Plaintiff s complaint as frivolous. Date: July 11, 2014 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendants Jefferson County Attorney 4412.009 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.