Ash v. Pulaski City State Patrol

Filing 5

ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED without prejudice with leave to amend. On or before August 16, 2021, Ash shall file an amended complaint that clearly explains the timeframe, facts, and legal basis for his claims, that is the who, what, when, where, how, and why behind his allegations, without straying into fanciful tales of conspiracy. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 7/14/2021. (dmw2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVENELL L. ASH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PULASKI CITY STATE PATROL and
LISA CASPER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:21-cv-781-DWD

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Davenell L. Ash brings this lawsuit against Defendants Pulaski City State
Patrol and Lisa Casper. (Doc. 3 at 1–2) Ash has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 4) Two matters must be resolved before in forma pauperis status can
be granted: the plaintiff must show that he is indigent by submitting an affidavit “that
includes a statement of all assets [he] possesses [showing] that [he] is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefor,” and the plaintiff’s complaint must state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2). Ash has submitted his financial
affidavit, but for the following reasons, he has not stated a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
In his complaint, Ash claims that there is a conspiracy among law enforcement
officers and others to kill him with drones and radiation. Ash describes driving from
Oxford, Mississippi to Minnesota. (Doc. 3 at 6) Shortly after entering Illinois on Interstate
57, Ash claims that a highway patrol officer pulled him over for speeding. (Doc. 3 at 10)

Ash believed that the officer was acting strangely and called 911. (Doc. 3 at 10) Ash claims
that another officer then arrived and began yelling at him. (Doc. 3 at 10) The officers
arrested Ash and revoked his driving privileges. (Doc. 3 at 11) After he bonded out of jail,
he stayed in a hotel for the weekend until he was able to get his driving privileges
reinstated. (Doc. 3 at 10–11) When he continued on his trip, another officer pulled him
over in the same location. (Doc. 3 at 11) He had to stay at the same hotel again, but he
claims that this time the owner placed him in a room filled with microphones, cameras,
and radiation. (Doc. 3 at 11) Financially depleted, Ash returned to Oxford, where he
claims law enforcement and drone operators tried to kill him with radiation. (Doc. 3 at
12) For four months, “perpetrators were gathering at my home every night for a radiation
lynching.” (Doc. 3 at 12) Ash believes that cameras, microphones, and drones are being
used to monitor him at his home, storage space, and car. (Doc. 3 at 12)
A district court may dismiss suits which are factually frivolous. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(1). A case may be dismissed as factually frivolous when “the facts alleged
are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and
delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Ash’s claims fall into this category. The Court finds that his allegations
of a conspiracy of law enforcement officers and drone operators bent on killing him with
radiation is factually frivolous.
However, Ash may be able to state a plausible claim against the officers who
arrested him in Pulaski County. For a plaintiff to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8, he must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
2

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This requirement is primarily
concerned with notice—putting a plaintiff to the paces of pleading some facts gives the
defendants enough foreknowledge of what they are being accused of so that they can
capably mount a response. See United States ex. rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d
374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003). A successful claim tends to explain the who, what, when, where,
why, and how of each alleged violation. For example, Ash has not stated a claim against
Lisa Casper because he has not explained how, when, and where she violated his
constitutional rights. And while Ash has offered some facts suggesting that certain
officers in Pulaski County may have violated his rights, he has not named those officers
as defendants or explained which specific rights he believes they violated.
For these reasons, Ash’s complaint (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED without prejudice with
leave to amend. On or before August 16, 2021, Ash shall file an amended complaint that
clearly explains the timeframe, facts, and legal basis for his claims, that is the who, what,
when, where, how, and why behind his allegations, without straying into fanciful tales
of conspiracy.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 14, 2021

______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

3