Anglin v. Kentucky Judicial Branch

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Plaintiff Wesley S. Anglin's complaint (R. 1 ) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. The Court shall enter an appropriate judgment. 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove on 10/25/2013.(AKR)cc: Plaintiff via US Mail

lJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRlCT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION AT FRANKFORT

OCT 25 2013
AI H1;\NKF(,((i

ROSEKT R GARH
CLERK U.S. DiSTRICT COURT

WESLEY S. ANGLIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
V.
)
)
KENTUCKY JUDICIAL BRANCH,)
)
Defendant.
)

****

****

Civil Action No. 13-CV-17-GFVT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

****

****

Plaintiff Wesley S. Anglin is an inmate confined in the Eastern Kentucky Correctional
Complex located in West Liberty, Kentucky. Proceeding without counsel, Anglin has filed a
"Petition for Declaration of Rights" [R. 1] which the Court has previously re-characterized as
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. [R. 2, at p. 2, ~ 3] By separate Order, the Court
has granted Anglin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court must conduct a preliminary review of Anglin's complaint because he has
been granted pauper status and because he asserts claims against government officials. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. A district court must dismiss any claim that 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. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,
607-08 (6th Cir. 1997).
The Court evaluates Anglin's complaint under a more lenient standard because he is
not represented by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Burton v. Jones,
321 F.3d 569,573 (6th Cir. 2003). At this stage, the Court accepts Anglin's factual

allegations as true, and liberally construes his legal claims in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Having reviewed the complaint, the Court must
dismiss it with prejudice because Anglin had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

I.
Anglin alleges that "as a sovereign citizen of the United States of America" he has
experienced "violations on constitutional magnitude." [R. 1, p. 1] Anglin failed, however, to
explain in his complaint how his legal rights were violated, when they were violated, or by
whom they were violated. Anglin devotes his 12-page complaint to discussing the Federalist
Papers, the importance of an independent judiciary, and various legal treatises written by
Alexander Hamilton. Anglin seeks no specific relief in his complaint, and states that " ... this
petition is indeed filed on behalf of the United States Constitution by Mr. Anglin. He
represents the interests of this sovereign contract .... " [Id., p. 11]1
District courts conducting an initial screening under § 1915(e) must apply the motion
to dismiss standard. See, e.g., Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468,470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying
the standard of review used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to initial
screening reviews conducted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Federal
courts ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) construe the complaint in a light

Anglin further states in his filing that "[t]his petition is not on behalf of Mr. Anglin as an
unlawfully detained collateral effect; it is in regards to the protections of the United States Citizens
as well as the sovereignty of the United States Constitution and its created Constitutional
democracy." [Id., p. 9]
I

2

most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as
true, and determining whether plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of
those allegations that would entitle him to relief. Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d 516,
519 (6th Cir.2008). For a case to survive a screening under § 1915, "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 Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)) As the Supreme Court has explained, "A pleading that
offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.'"

Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) See also Association a/Cleveland Fire

Fighters v. City a/Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007).
Here, Anglin alleges in vague and conclusory fashion that his constitutional rights
were violated, but he provided no factual support whatsoever for his assertion. Anglin also
alleges that he filed this action not on his own behalf, but on behalf the United States
Constitution and/or all other citizens of the United States. Anglin, however, has legal
standing to assert only his own constitutional rights, not the rights of others. Whitmore v.

Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990); Christian v. City a/Kingsport, No. 2:06-CV-229, 2006 WL
3421855, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 28, 2006). Unless a plaintiff alleges that he was personally
harmed or injured, and that the harm or injury was fairly traceable to the defendant's alleged
unconstitutional conduct, he does not satisfY the Article III standing requirements. Allen v.

Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). And as noted, Anglin fails to explain in his complaint
whether was harmed or injured, and if so, how he was harmed or injured and by whom.

3

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Anglin's complaint does not contain "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, and will
therefore dismiss it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
II.
The Court further notes that in 2011, Anglin filed what appears to be a similar civil
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. See Anglin v.

Kentucky's Governmental Branches/Artificial Citizens, No. 3:11-CV-406-JHM (W.D. Ky.
2011). In that action, Anglin filed a "Petition for Declaration of Rights and Writ of Habeas
Corpus" seeking relief from his state court criminal conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§§
2201,1331, and 2241. [R. 1, therein] Anglin alleged that an unfair and unconstitutional trial
took place in Breckinridge Circuit Court (No. 09-CR-00057) "due to it being governed by
KRS 532.055, which has been held as a violation of the Constitutional's Separation of
Powers Doctrine." [Id.]
On November 29,2011, Judge Joseph H. McKinley construed Anglin's submission as
a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, denied the petition for
failure to exhaust, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the action. [Id., R. 10
and 11, therein] On January 24,2012, Judge McKinley denied Anglin's motion seeking
reconsideration ofthe dismissal of his construed habeas petition. [R. 15, therein]
Although the complaint which Anglin filed in this case is woefully inadequate to pass
muster under § 1915 (e)(2), Anglin may be attempting to again challenge the legality of his

4

Breckinridge Circuit Court criminal conviction in this case. If that is in fact Anglin's
intention, he must first exhaust his claims in the state courts of Kentucky. As Judge
McKinley explained in detail in his January 24,2012, Order, Anglin had, as of that date,
failed to properly exhaust his habeas claims in state court. See id., pp. 2-3 ("It is axiomatic
that one may not seek federal habeas corpus relief until he has exhausted all available state
remedies or demonstrated their inadequacies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Hannah v. Conley, 49
F.3d 1193 (6th Cir. 1995). Any alleged constitutional deprivations must be asserted through
the state appellate process. 0 'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)").
Anglin does not allege in this action that he has exhausted his construed habeas claims
in state court. If he has exhausted his purported habeas claims in state court, he must file a §
2254 habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky,
not in this district.

III
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Wesley S. Anglin's complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.
2.

The Court shall enter an appropriate judgment.

3.

This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.

This October 25,2013.

Signed By:
r

\

United States Disttict Judge
5