United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL
WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF
APPELLATE FILING FEE, AND DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
L. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Lee Marl Little, Jr., an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Memphis, Tennessee (“FCI
Memphis”), sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) 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 Court directs the Clerk to record the
Defendants as the Memphis Police Department
(“MPD”); Detectives D. Gooch, R. Jackson, D.
Smith, J. Myers, M. Stephens, R. Tabor, I. Ruiz, and J.
Gross; and the Memphis City Attorney.
contests actions of MPD detectives leading to his arrest on
firearm and drug charges. He contests the warrant Detective
Gooch provided supporting Plaintiff's traffic stop and
later arrest. (Id. at PageID 3-5.) During the stop,
Detective Gooch searched Plaintiff's car and found drugs.
(Id. at PageID 7.) Plaintiff alleges MPD officers
then took the drugs to his home and searched the home without
a warrant based on only a tip from an unnamed confidential
informant. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 2-3.) According to Plaintiff,
Detective Gooch found a firearm, ammunition, and “a
large sum of money” in the home. (Id. at
PageID 7.) Detective Gooch then “grouped” those
items together with drugs in Plaintiff's car and
photographed them to make it appear “as though all of
it were found solely at the home.” (Id.)
Plantiff alleges after the search, officers obtained “a
correct warrant issued to support the illegal search, ”
but the warrant listed an incorrect address. (Id. at
PageID 8.) Plaintiff asserts that Detective Gooch
“simply changed the address and wrote it in.”
mentions no other detective but alleges that Detective Gooch,
“and his support staff, all colluded and conspired with
each other, to participate in the lie that there was a
warrant supporting they're [sic] actions.”
(Id. at PageID 5.) Plaintiff asserts that the MPD
and City Attorney “are involved in one way or the
other, all in they're [sic] individual and municipal
capacity, a[s] part of this illegal search and seizure of the
petitioner.” (Id. at PageID 6.) He seeks to
hold the MPD responsible for “hiring and
supporting” Detective Gooch and the others involved.
(Id. at PageID 3, 6.) And he seeks to hold the
unnamed Memphis City Attorney responsible for
“participating and colluding as to this illegal search
and seizure.” (Id. at PageID 3.)
sues Defendants in their individual capacities. (Id.
at PageID 2.) He seeks compensatory damages. (Id. at
Screening Requirements Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Court has to screen prisoner complaints and to 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. And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 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 ...