Robledo-Valdez v. White PTS Lieutenant (Doe) et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court will, by separate Order, dismiss Plaintiff's claims as frivolous. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants (SG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
SEBASTIAN ROBLEDO-VALDEZ
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-P32-JHM
PRISONER TRANSPORT SERVICES et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Sebastian Robledo-Valdez, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis civil-rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 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
At the time Plaintiff filed his complaint, he was incarcerated in Golden, Colorado. He
names as Defendants Prison Transport Services (PTS) and two of its employees. He alleges that
Defendant Prison Transport Services picked him up from the Bexar County Jail in San Antonio,
Texas on February 1, 2015. He states that for the next five days he was kept “handcuffed,
fettered, shackeled” in a “hard plastic chair, unable to shower, shave, sleep, wash my hands, or
brush my teeth.” He states that he received no fruits or vegetables during this time and for the
first four days was not allowed to step off of the van/bus. He alleges that two Lieutenants, whom
he names as Defendants White PTS Lieutenant (Doe) and Black PTS Lieutenant (Doe), kept him
and 12 others “in cages”; “fed us fast food of their choosing; kept us awake for 20 to 22 hours a
day; gave [him] dirty soiled blankets when it was snowing outside; and refused to let [him]
shower or shave or brush [his] teeth.” Plaintiff alleges that he was struck in the face when he
“demanded a phone call to an attorney.” He further alleges that he was denied two meals and did
not receive snacks. He alleges that his First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment rights were violated
for five and one-half days. He also alleges that similar things happened to him for 16 days in
2008 when he was being transported by Prison Transport Services.
Plaintiff states that PTS’s “relay/way station” is in Owensboro, Kentucky. He states that
the jail in Owensboro is where PTS leaves inmates and transfers inmates to other vehicles.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff spent eight days at the Daviess County Jail in 2008 while
waiting for another PTS bus.
II. ANALYSIS
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 action, if the
Court determines that it 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. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). 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 Plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of
Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). 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).
2
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). 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.
1988)).
Here, it is clear from the face of the complaint that the incidents about which Plaintiff
complains occurred in 2008 and in early February 2015. However, the complaint states that
Plaintiff placed the complaint in the prisoner mail system for mailing on March 11, 2016. Under
the mailbox rule, the 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)). The complaint, therefore, was filed after the limitations period had run. Thus, the
instant action is time-barred.
3
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will, by separate Order, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims as
frivolous. Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001).
Date:
August 31, 2016
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4414.009
4
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?