Alvey v. Warren County Sheriff's Office
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers on 9/10/2020 denying as moot 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting 6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will enter a separate order dismissing the action. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendant(JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
CURTIS EDWARD ALVEY, JR.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-141-GNS
WARREN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a pro se action initiated by Plaintiff Curtis Edward Alvey, Jr. Plaintiff has filed
two applications to proceed without prepayment of fees. Upon review of the second application,
the Court finds that Plaintiff makes the financial showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Thus, IT IS ORDERED that the second application (DN 6) is GRANTED and that the first
application (DN 3) is DENIED as moot.
This matter is before the Court for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). For the
reasons that follow, the action will be dismissed.
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a federal claim form titled “Claim for Damage,
Injury, or Death” (DN 1). Plaintiff indicates that the federal agency the form should be
submitted to is the Warren County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO). Under the section titled “Basis of
Claim,” he has written:
After several contacts with the [WCSO] involving violence in the work place,
violence in my personal life involving minors and strangers, and several situations
that include strange cyber activity, excessive criminal activity, potential identify
theft matters, and my nine year old daughter. I never received assistance from the
[WCSO] potentially placing my life in danger and child in harms way.
In the section which instructs Plaintiff to state the “basis and extent of each injury or cause of
death . . . ,” Plaintiff states, “This was the first incident involving the [WCSO]. But not the first
incident in a string of patterns and situations that would involve Violations of my Constitutional
Rights and Violations.”
Upon receiving a deficiency notice instructing Plaintiff that he must file a complaint on a
Court-supplied complaint form, he then filed two such forms (DNs 1-2 & 1-4). On the first
complaint form, Plaintiff indicates that the Defendant in this action is the WCSO and that the
action is brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. He states, “After several attempts to
report a crime that places my life in danger + my daughters I was neglected + had my civil rights
violated. This effecting my education. I am pressing criminal charges[.]” He then states that he
is “asking $20,000,000 + seeking to press criminal charges[.]”
On the second complaint form, Plaintiff indicates he is suing federal, state, and local
officials for “I believe all my civil rights are being violated.” In the “Statement of Claim” section
of the second complaint form, Plaintiff indicates that the incident giving rise to his claim occurred
on August 12, 2020. He then describes the incident as follows:
There are several witnesses and suspects. Once I contacted the police to help me
pursue a crime I am a victim of. I was given blank looks, and had my life placed
in harms way yet again. Crimes will include black mail, identity theft, extortion,
kidnapping, attempted murder, and many more.
Under the “Injuries” section of the second complaint form, Plaintiff writes:
I have spoken to several law enforcement agencies about my injuries and crimes I
am a victim of but none have helped me. I have also spoken to school counselors,
but they never responded to me about helping me, just offered more therapy. My
head hurts I get dizzy and I’m scared I’m going to be shot or die in a car crash.
In the “Relief” section of the second complaint form, Plaintiff states, “Originally I
requested $20,000,000 but now I am pressing charges because I fear for me life.”
On review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a district court must dismiss a case at any time if it
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); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
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)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing
Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)).
Although courts are to hold pro se pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this duty to be less
stringent “does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations,” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16,
19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518
F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require 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).
The Court construes the complaint as asserting that the WCSO is liable to Plaintiff for
failing to investigate crimes that he reported. A private citizen, however, “has no constitutional,
statutory, or common law right to require a public official to investigate or prosecute a crime.”
Matthews v. Craige, No. 1:16-CV-11680, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83383, at *11 (E.D. Mich.
June 28, 2016); Fulson v. City of Columbus, 801 F. Supp. 1, 6 (S.D. Ohio 1992) (“A public
official charged with the duty to investigate or prosecute a crime does not owe that duty to any
one member of the public, and thus no one member of the public has a right to compel a public
official to act.”)); see also Douglas v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:12 CV 1145, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 143919, at *13-14 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2012) (citing cases); White v. City of Toledo, 217
F. Supp. 2d 838, 841-42 (N.D. Ohio 2002) (same).
Moreover, Plaintiff may not ask this Court to press charges. “It is well settled that the
question of whether and when prosecution is to be instituted is within the discretion of the
Attorney General.” Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 235 (D.C. Cir. 1965). The Court does
not have the power to direct that criminal charges be filed. Peek v. Mitchell, 419 F.2d 575,
577-78 (6th Cir. 1970); Fleetwood v. Thompson, 358 F. Supp. 310, 311 (N.D. Ill. 1972).
Thus, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
The Court will enter a separate Order dismissing the action for the reasons stated herein.
Date: September 10, 2020
Plaintiff, pro se
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?