Watkins v. WHAS 11
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 10/12/2016; separate order entered this date dismissing case.cc:defendant, pro se plaintiff (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
GENE DESHAWN M. WATKINS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-489-TBR
Plaintiff Gene DeShawn M. Watkins filed this pro se action. This matter is before the
Court for initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss this action.
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form (DN 1). In the
caption of this complaint form, he identifies WHAS 11, a local news station, as the Defendant.
In the body of this form, Plaintiff states: “This has caused me mental and emotional stress I
askin for moneitary relief of 10 bil dollars 10 yrs of mental and emotional stress plus gross
nelgance and professional neglect.”
On August 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as an amended complaint on
a general civil complaint form (DN 6). On this form, he states that the federal statutes that are at
issue in this case are “professional neglect” and “gross neglance.” He states that the amount in
controversy is “more than 75 K due to racial Discrimination done by the Feds I came up w/ the
cure for cancer and STD’s and the reason y I didn’t file a patent is cuz my mom house is bugged
by the feds and it leaked to local news stations in Louisville.”
In the “Statement of Claim” section of this amended complaint, he writes as follows:
My mom house is bugged and I came up w/ inventions in my house fear that my
inventions be stolen I email my ideas to ABC cuz the feds was leakin out gov
equipment that gov equipment was bugs placed in my mom’s house by the feds
and that equipment go to News reporters to evidence I emailed my ideas to ABC a
horse run Quarter sprint Quarter jog Quarter sprint Quarter jog the feds was
readin everyone of my Emails to ABC I am a indentured servant it been over 10
years of me bein watched by the feds the reason y I didn’t file patents cuz when I
found out I was being bugged by the feds it was to late my Ideas was out there to
local news stations I talkin Qutillions of more and better of money stolen from me
my sister was murdered and I am successful for over a decade I been successful I
want the truth . . .”
In the “Relief” section of the amended complaint, Plaintiff states that he is seeking:
“moneitary relief 10 bil dollars mental and emotional stress.”
Upon 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). 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 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)). However, this Court is not required to
create a claim for Plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In other words,
“a . . . complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material
elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy
Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“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.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint does not suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]
devoid of further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
A review of Plaintiff’s complaint reveals that he has failed to meet the pleading standard
required by Rule 8(a)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of factual matter that would allow the
Court to draw a reasonable inference that the named Defendant is liable for any alleged
misconduct. Plaintiff’s allegations are rambling and difficult to understand. The complaint does
not contain sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true, states “a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 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 (1972), the duty “does not require
us to conjure up unpled allegations.” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979). As
previously stated, this Court is not required to create a claim for Plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l
Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d at 1169. To do so would require the “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).
Accordingly, this action must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
Additionally, “a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous,
devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.
1999) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)). The allegations in Plaintiff’s
complaint meet this standard. The instant action must, therefore, also be dismissed for lack of
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) in accordance with Apple v. Glenn. The Court
will enter an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
October 12, 2016
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?