Heath v. Brown et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court will, by separate Order, dismiss Plaintiffs complaint as frivolous.cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants; Jefferson county Attorney (SG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
SHY LAMONT HEATH

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-256-H

WILLIAM BROWN et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Shy Lamont Heath, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (DN 1). This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, the action will be
dismissed.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff sues Louisville Police Detectives William Brown, Steve Kaufling, and
Dominique Fearon; former police chief Robert White; and Sergeant “Brain” Nunn. He alleges
that his civil rights were violated on July 26, 2006, and November 14, 2009. He asks for
monetary and punitive damages.
II. ANALYSIS
This Court must review the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 604-05. Upon review, this Court must dismiss a case at any time if
the Court 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). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may,

therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory
or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. When determining whether a
plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must construe the
complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as
true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). A complaint, or portion
thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted “only
if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that
would entitle him to relief.” Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000).
While a reviewing court must liberally construe pro se pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall,
454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must include “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
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, 275280 (1985). Thus, 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). “[T]he statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to
know of the injury which is the basis of his action and . . . a plaintiff has reason to know of his
injury when he should have discovered it through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Id. at
183. Though the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a court may raise the issue sua
sponte if the defense is obvious from the face of the complaint. Fields v. Campbell, 39 F. App’x
221, 223 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Haskell v. Washington Twp., 864 F.2d 1266, 1273 (6th Cir.

2

1988)).
Here, Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 17, 2014, well after the one-year limitations
period had run. Since Plaintiff’s complaint was filed outside the limitations period, all of his
claims will be dismissed as frivolous, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will, by separate Order, dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
as frivolous.
Date:

July 11, 2014

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
Jefferson County Attorney
4412.009

3