Larson v. Beshear et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 5/23/2013; 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; the court will enter an order dismissing the action consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.cc: plaintiff pro se (TLB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
JAMES H. LARSON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV-418-H
STEVEN L. BESHEAR et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff James H. Larson filed this action on a Court-approved general complaint form.
He also filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees (DN 3), which is
GRANTED. This matter is now before the Court on preliminary review of the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
For the reasons that follow, the instant action will be dismissed.
The complaint lists four Defendants in the case caption: Steven L. Beshear, Rodney
Brewer, Michael T. Kidd, and Timothy Mullins. As grounds for filing this case in federal court,
Plaintiff states, “Ex Post Facto Laws, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution.”
As his prayer for relief, Plaintiff states that he requests the Court to “[m]ake those responsible
abide by the law that govern my case and remove me from the sex offender registry after
completion of the time ten years required time.” However, Plaintiff does not include a statement
of the claim or any other factual allegations in support of his complaint.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the instant
action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); McGore, 114 F.3d at 608-09. Upon review, this Court must
dismiss a case at any time if it determines that an 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991).
However, the duty “does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations.” McDonald v. Hall,
610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979).
While the Court is aware of its duty to construe pro se complaints liberally, Plaintiff is
not absolved of his duty to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by providing
Defendants with “fair notice of the basis for [his] claims.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534
U.S. 506, 514 (2002). To state a claim for relief, Plaintiff must show how each Defendant is
accountable because the Defendant was personally involved in the acts about which he
complains. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375-76 (1976). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts
concerning any of the named Defendants or stated how any of the Defendants are responsible for
the alleged harm.
Likewise, Plaintiff has stated no factual basis for his claim that Defendants have violated
the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court notes that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has
held that the federal sex offender registration statute, the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act, 42 U.S.C. § 16901, does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause since the statute
does not increase the punishment for the past conviction but provides for a conviction for failing
to register. See United States v. Felts, 674 F.3d 599, 606 (6th Cir. 2012). For these reasons, the
complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Court will enter an Order dismissing the action consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
May 23, 2013
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?