Roth v. Metcalfe County Sheriff Office

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 11/26/2024: The Court construes the Plaintiff's filing at 5 as a motion to amend the complaint and GRANTS the motion. The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal for the reasons stated herein.cc: Plaintiff, pro se (EAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT BOWLING GREEN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24CV-P76-JHM
NATHAN DONALD ROTH

PLAINTIFF

v.
METCALFE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Nathan Donald Roth filed the instant pro se prisoner 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In
addition to the complaint (DN 1), Plaintiff filed a document which he requests to be “attach[ed]”
to the case (DN 5). The Court construes this filing as a motion to amend the complaint and
GRANTS the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The complaint and amended complaint are now
before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below,
the Court will dismiss the action.
I. SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is housed at the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center. He names the Metcalfe
County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) as the only Defendant. Plaintiff states that he had a $750,000
lawsuit in Ohio and it was a “strong case.” He asserts that “the judges need to hear this case. Hope
for wages lost over million dollars.” He further states as follows:
Wrongfully missing and seized by the Sheriff of Metcalfe County asking for no less
than $750,000 and all my stuff that was wrongfully seized plus time I’m spend in
jail all my “presidential fire-arms” and there’s bullets missing too I’m filing for the
truth wish you judges see to help with knowing the truth rockstar level not cheap.
Plaintiff states, “RV Chevy 454 motor, more than half of everything in my RV missing. My Chevy
Silverado truck. Money lost from working on trucking pallets.” He asserts, “Sign civil lawsuit

never got paid do to wrongfully locked up. Five million sound about right. So sorry judges for
the lyes they said in court at Akron Ohio.”
Plaintiff also states that he has been “wrongfully in jail.” He states, “I’m losing land deals,
I’m losing social security income each month I’m locked up wrongfully already had a jury say
there peace on me having firearms. Lost a lot of money and pallets business deals . . . .” He states
that his jury trial was in March 2021. He states, “Judges of Kentucky please honor this five million
dollars.”
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges, “(1) False acusation of police reports. Never
had a camper on Neeper Rd (‘parked).’ (2) Never owned a camper with firearms in it.”
As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and “release of all property
seized without warrant.” In the amended complaint, he also seeks “injunctive relief – case
dismissal, no contact orders.”
II. STANDARD
When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity, officer,
or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion
of it, if the court determines that the complaint 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. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (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] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the

2

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)). “But the district court need not accept a ‘bare assertion of
legal conclusions.’” Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum,
58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)). 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, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), “[o]ur duty to
be ‘less stringent’ with pro se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations.”
McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Although the complaint and amended complaint are not a model of clarity, the Court
construes the action as challenging Plaintiff’s conviction and the seizure of his property.
A. Challenge to conviction
Plaintiff cannot challenge his conviction in this action. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner could not state a cognizable claim
under § 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or for “harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” unless a prisoner showed that the
conviction or sentence had been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a
federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. (footnote omitted). This principle holds
true whether the plaintiff seeks damages or equitable relief. Wilkerson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 8182 (2005). Plaintiff does not allege that his conviction was reversed on appeal or otherwise

3

invalidated. Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegations challenging the validity of his conviction must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
B. Seizure of property
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, 275-80
(1985). 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).
While state law governs the length of the applicable statute of limitations, “the accrual date of a
§ 1983 cause of action is a question of federal law that is not resolved by reference to state law.”
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007); see also Eidson v. Tenn. Dep’t of Children’s Servs.,
510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th Cir. 2007). The statute of limitations begins to run “when the reasonable
person knows, or in the exercise of due diligence should have known, both his injury and the cause
of that injury.” Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State Univ., 48 F.4th 686, 698 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Bishop
v. Children’s Ctr. for Developmental Enrichment, 618 F.3d 533, 536 (6th Cir. 2010)); see also
Robinson v. Butler Cnty., KY, No. 21-5536, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34938, at *5-6 (6th Cir. Dec.
16, 2022). “[T]he Court looks to what event should have alerted the typical lay person to protect
his or her rights.” Beaver St. Invs., LLC v. Summit Cnty., Ohio, 65 F.4th 822, 826 (6th Cir. 2023)
(internal citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff's claims based on the seizure of his personal property accrued on the date of
the seizure. See, e.g., Harper v. Jackson, 293 F. App’x 389, 392 n.1 (6th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff’s
claims accrued on the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure); Michel v. City of Akron, 278
F. App’x 477, 480 (6th Cir. 2008) (same). While Plaintiff does not state the date that his property
was seized, it is clear that the seizure occurred before his trial in March 2021. Therefore, the

4

limitations period accrued, at the very latest in March 2021, and expired one year later in March
2022. Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 31, 2024,1 more than two years after the statute of
limitation expired. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim based on the seizure of his property is untimely and
must be dismissed as frivolous. See, e.g., Castillo v. Grogan, 52 F. App’x 750, 751 (6th Cir. 2002)
(“When a meritorious affirmative defense based upon the applicable statute of limitations is
obvious from the face of the complaint, sua sponte dismissal of the complaint as frivolous is
appropriate.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal for the reasons stated herein.
Date:

November 26, 2024

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4414.010

1

Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner’s document is deemed filed when presented to prison officials for mailing. Miller
v. Collins, 305 F.3d 491, 497-98 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)).

5