United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER TO MODIFY THE DOCKET, DISMISSING COMPLAINT,
CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH,
DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL, AND
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
L. PARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Frederick Herron, an inmate at the Northwest Correctional
Complex in Tiptonville, Tennessee, sued pro se under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF No. 1; ECF No. 2.) The Court granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 5.) The Clerk is ORDERED
to record the Defendants as the State of Tennessee, John
Dolan, Patrick Stegall, James Jones, Kevin Balkwill,
Detective B. Black, Tacoma A. McCrary, MM,  and Keyla Walker.
complaint contains allegations about his state criminal
matter, which began when Defendant Black contacted Plaintiff
for questioning in December 2010. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 4.)
Law enforcement arrested Plaintiff in July 2011 on charges of
child rape. (Id.) A jury found him guilty after a
trial in March 2012. (Id.) Plaintiff appealed
through the state appellate courts. The Tennessee Supreme
Court vacated his conviction and remanded for a new trial in
March 2015. (Id.) Plaintiff now asserts that he has
been waiting in custody since April 2015 for a new trial.
(Id.) He named many parties as defendants.
wants to sue the victim from his criminal matter--Defendant
MM--and MM's sister, Defendant McCrary, who allegedly
filed the criminal complaint with the Memphis Police
Department that led to the investigation. (Id.)
Plaintiff objects to evidence presented at trial, some of
which he alleges the prosecution withheld from discovery.
(Id. at PageID 4-5.) Plaintiff also complains about
the performance of three of his attorneys-Defendants Dolan,
Stegall, and Jones-and seeks to sue Defendant Balkwill, who
allegedly investigated ethics complaints Plaintiff filed
against his attorneys with the Tennessee Board of
Professional Responsibility. (Id. at PageID 6-8.)
requests a dismissal of the indictment in his criminal
matter, acquittal of all charges, his release from custody,
and punitive and compensatory damages. (ECF No. 1 at PageID
3.) Plaintiff has also moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF
Screening Requirements Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss any
complaint, or any portion of it, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §
step one, in assessing whether the complaint states a claim
on which relief may be granted, the Court applies the
standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as
stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79
(2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Under those standards, the Court
accepts the complaint's “well-pleaded”
factual allegations as true and then determines whether the
allegations “plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief.” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383
(6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681).
Conclusory allegations “are not entitled to the
assumption of truth” because they are not
“factual” and legal conclusions “must be
supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679. Federal Rule also of Civil Procedure 8 also
provides guidance on this issue.
though Rule 8 only requires a complaint to contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, ” it also requires
factual allegations to make a “‘showing,'
rather than a ...