United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
A. TRAUGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff Mardoche Olivier, proceeding pro se, has
filed a civil rights complaint against defendants Clarksville
Police Officers Keith Jones, Ronald Keenom, JT Knoblock,
David Odell, and Crystal Robinson and the City of Clarksville
(“City”). (ECF No. 1.) Additionally, the
plaintiff has applied to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF No. 2)
it is apparent from the plaintiff's application that he
lacks sufficient resources from which to pay the required
filing fee, his application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) will be granted.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to
conduct an initial review of any complaint filed in forma
pauperis and to dismiss the complaint if it is facially
frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Begola v. Brown, 172 F.3d 47 (Table), 1998 WL
894722, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 1998) (citing McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007)). The Court must construe a pro se
plaintiff's complaint liberally, Boag v.
McDaniel, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), and accept the
plaintiff's allegations as true unless they are clearly
irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
complaint the plaintiff alleges that on June 1, 2015,
Officers Jones and Knoblock stopped a female driver, Ms.
Mines, who was following the plaintiff, who was also driving,
to a location in Clarksville, Tennessee. Ms. Mines was
stopped for speeding. Ms. Mines and Officers Jones and
Knoblock pulled into a parking lot.
noticing that Ms. Mines was no longer behind him, the
plaintiff retraced his route, eventually pulling in to the
parking lot where Officers Jones and Knoblock were with Ms.
Mines. Plainitff exited his vehicle but remained a
“good distance” from where Officers Jones and
Knoblock were dealing with Ms. Mines. (ECF No. 1 at Page ID#
Jones and Knoblock eventually approached the plaintiff
explaining that Ms. Mines had told them that the plaintiff
was her ride. Officers Jones and Knoblock asked to see the
plaintiff's driver's license. The plaintiff informed
Officer Jones and Knoblock “that he did not want
anything to do with them and . . . that this contact was not
consensual.” Id. Plaintiff demanded that
Officers Jones and Knoblock leave him alone.
alleges that Officer Jones and Knoblock continued to harass
him, so much so, that the plaintiff ended up calling
“911” seeking assistance in dealing with Officers
jones and Knoblock. While the plaintiff waited for a
supervisor, Officers Jones and Knoblock arrested him for
driving on a revoked/suspended license and excessive
“911” calls. Plaintiff alleges that Officers
Jones and Knoblock also searched his vehicle without his
permission, warrant or probable cause to search.
supervisor arrived, the supervisor refused to assist the
plaintiff and allowed Officers Jones and Knoblock to
“false[ly] imprison [the] plaintiff without any
probably cause of a crime.
alleges claims for violation of his Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. Additionally, he alleges claims
for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242.
relief, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages
against each defendant.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
action is filed in forma pauperis, “the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In assessing whether the complaint in this
case states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court
applies the standards under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, as construed by Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009), and Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007).
See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir.
2010) (holding that “the dismissal standard articulated
in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for
failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)]
because the relevant statutory language tracks the language
in Rule 12(b)(6)”). “Accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true, the Court
‘consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint
to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief.'” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d
380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
681) (alteration in original). “[P]leadings that . . .
are no more than conclusions are not entitled to the
assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see
also Twombly, 550 ...