Allen v. OPD Owensboro Police Department, No. 4:2021cv00020 - Document 7 (W.D. Ky. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 3/30/2021: For reasons set forth in Memorandum Opinion, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. cc:Plaintiff, pro se; Defendant (EAS)

Download PDF

Allen v. OPD Owensboro Police Department Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION CASEY CORDERO ALLEN PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-CV-P20-JHM OPD OWENSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a pro se civil action brought by a pretrial detainee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff Casey Cordero Allen leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 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. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Court-supplied § 1983 complaint form. In the section of the complaint form where Plaintiff is to list the Defendants in this action, he states, “Officers involved in 2019 arrest . . . in total unknown at 1230 parrish.” In the “Statement of Claims” section of the complaint form, Plaintiff writes, “4th” and “SAS.” In the “Relief” section of the complaint form, Plaintiff indicates that he seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as “other: to owner of ‘vehicle’ ‘involved’ $ 42,000.” II. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon Dockets.Justia.com which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 604. In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In addition, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In other words, a “complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Conclusory allegations or bare legal conclusions will not suffice as factual allegations. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (2007); Followell v. Mills, 317 F. App’x 501, 505 (6th Cir. 2009). 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). 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,775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). 2 In the instant case, Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient details to put Defendant on notice as to any claim(s) against it, see Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (indicating that the short and plain statement of claim must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’”) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly), and the complaint is simply too vague for the Court to discern a cause of action under any legal theory. III. For the foregoing reasons, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. Date: March 30, 2021 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendant 4414.011 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.