Watkins v. WAVE 3
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge David J. Hale on 09/07/2016. The Court will dismiss this action by separate Order. cc:Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants(EM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
GENE DESHAWN M. WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-286-DJH
WAVE 3 et al.,
Defendants.
* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Gene DeShawn M. Watkins, pro se and in forma pauperis, has brought a civil
rights complaint. 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 that follow, the action will be
dismissed.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff brings this action against Wave 3 and one of its reporters, Dawn Gee. He alleges
violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as “stalkin” and “Professional
neglect.” Plaintiff claims as follows:
I wrote Rhymes and I Never got paid for it that’s a violation of my 14
admendment rights I am chargin for professional negelect I am the guy who found
the cure for cancer it come from the liquid from the colon that’s late stages of
colon cancer I came up w/a run Quarter jog Quarter Spring Quarter jog Quarter
sprint Wave 3 wont say nothing cuz of espionage, obstruction, interfering in a
federal investigation for havin gov equipment that run is dominating the horse
industry.
Plaintiff attached a document (DN 1-1) to his complaint which appears to be a continuation of
his claims. Therein, he states as follows:
[F]or 14 yrs I have went threw investigation tellin my story threw emails and
Wave 3 knew about my telepity they wont say nothing about it cuz of the sheild
law so Wave 3 women and some men was havin sex to it havin kids and then
come on tv like they know nothing I came up w/a run Quarter Sprint Quarter jog
Quarter Sprint Quarter jog and Nike and NBC got the run off of ABC see w/this
telepity gift ppl can read my thoughts especially women my sister was murdered
May/19/2014 and news stations put her face on TV I am sayin incompetence
professional neglect violation of my 14 admendment rights and my 1st
admendment rights the feds was givin out gov equipment what I think in my head
a women can hear I reach from Louisville around the globe longitude and latitude
this been goin on for over a decade and news stations wont say nothing cuz y they
have gov equipment which is espionage, inteferrin in a fedral investigation, and
obstruction.
As for the relief he seeks, Plaintiff states, “I seekin damages for me telepity I don’t have a price
cuz I don’t know a price lets say 200 mil and hr for 15 yrs I make women have orgasms w/o
touchin threw gov earphones that was passed out to News organizations by the feds that’s price
is includin interest.”
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
2
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
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Although Plaintiff cites to two constitutional amendments, he has no cause of action
directly under the Constitution. “The Constitution does not directly provide for damages; thus,
in order to sustain his constitutional causes of action, [plaintiff] must proceed under one of the
statutes authorizing damages for constitutional violations.” Sanders v. Prentice-Hall Corp.,
No. 97-6138, 1999 WL 115517 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 1999). Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides the
exclusive remedy for pursuing the constitutional violations alleged by Plaintiff. Thomas v.
Shipka, 818 F.2d 496, 499 (6th Cir. 1987), vacated on other grounds, 488 U.S. 1036 (1989).
Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff’s claims as being brought under § 1983. Azul-Pacifico,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[A] litigant complaining of a
violation of a constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); Henderson v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., 918 F. Supp. 204, 208 (E.D. Tenn. 1996) (“A plaintiff must allege a cause of action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 in order to bring a claim of a constitutional violation of the First or Fourteenth
Amendments”.).
In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right or
rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988).
The Constitution does not apply to the conduct of private persons; it applies to conduct
3
by the government. Conduct of private parties “lies beyond the Constitution’s scope in most
instances, . . . [though] governmental authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that
its participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government and, as a result, be
subject to constitutional constraints.” Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614,
620 (1991). A private citizen is not liable for an alleged constitutional violation unless:
(1) “the claimed constitutional deprivation resulted from the exercise of a right or privilege
having its source in state authority”; and (2) “the private party charged with the deprivation
could be described in all fairness as a state actor.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff has named as Defendants a media company and one of its reporters.
Nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint shows that Defendants are state actors, i.e., acted under color of
state law. Therefore, the federal claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
Moreover, the Court finds that the instant action must be dismissed as frivolous. An
action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or “rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); see also
Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198-99 (6th Cir. 1990). The Court need not accept as true
factual allegations that are “‘fantastic or delusional’” in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness.
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 328).
Here, Plaintiff’s claims “contain[] no legal theory upon which a valid federal claim may rest”
and, to the extent they may be deciphered, are “delusional”; dismissal is appropriate. Abner v.
SBC (Ameritech), 86 F. App’x 958, 958-59 (6th Cir. 2004).
4
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, by separate Order, this action will be dismissed.
Date:
cc:
September 7, 2016
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4415.003
David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
5
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?