Baker v. Blane

E.D. Kentucky

Baker v. Blane

DecidedMay 15, 2024

Docket6:24-cv-00047

StatusUnknown

This text of Baker v. Blane (Baker v. Blane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Blane, (E.D. Ky. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London)

GLENN SAM BAKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 6:24-CV-47-CHB ) v. ) ) EVE BLANE, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER Defendant. )

*** *** *** ***

Plaintiff Glenn Baker is an inmate confined at the Bell County Detention Center (“BCDC”) in Pineville, Kentucky. Baker has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [R. 1]. The Court has granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis by separate Order. [R. 9]. This matter is before the Court to conduct the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F. 3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). When testing the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court affords it a forgiving construction, accepting as true all non-conclusory factual allegations and liberally construing its legal claims in the plaintiff’s favor. Davis v. Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433, 437–38 (6th Cir. 2012). A district court must dismiss any claim that 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. Hill, 630 F. 3d at 470–71. In his complaint, Baker alleges that Norma Lay, an employee of the United States Postal Service in Pineville, Kentucky, has stolen more than fifty pieces of his incoming and outgoing mail from BCDC and given it to Leamon Partin. [R. 1, pp. 23]. Baker indicates that some of these letters included checks from the United States Department of the Treasury. Id. Baker further alleges that Partin and Candace Vance forged his signature and cashed the checks at a local bank, often using aliases. Id. Baker makes similar allegations against Thresa Sinclair, but he does not name her as a defendant in his complaint. Id. Baker names Lay, Partin, and Vance, as well as Post Master Eve Blane, as defendants. Id. at 1–2. Baker indicates that the legal basis for any claims against the defendants is unknown to him. Id. at 4. Baker does not seek damages,

but requests only that the defendants be prosecuted. Id. at 8. The Court has reviewed Baker’s allegations but will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The mishandling of mail and postal materials can violate various federal criminal statutes. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1700–1713. Certain provisions specifically address mishandling by postal employees. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1703, 1709. But only federal prosecutors, not private citizens or a court, can initiate a federal prosecution. See generally Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973). And the asserted violation of these criminal statutes will not support federal question jurisdiction. See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 767 n.13 (2005); Sciolino v. Marine Midland Bank- Western, 463 F. Supp. 128, 131-32 (W.D.N.Y.

1979). Likewise, the alleged actions of Partin and Vance, whom Baker does not allege are federal employees, amount to violations of Kentucky rather than federal law and will not support subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. Because the allegations of the complaint do not indicate any colorable basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss this action. Chevalier v. Estate of Barnhart, 803 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir. 2015). Baker is advised that a person who believes that his or her mail has been mishandled, stolen, or used to commit fraud may contact the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), which may commence an investigation. See Winston-Bey v. United States, No. CV CCB-15-02020, 2015 WL 8757829, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2015). Contact information may be obtained from USPIS’s website at https://www.uspis.gov/. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Baker’s complaint, [R. 1], is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. This the 15th day of May, 2024. ASS Ta KG Os ip i Conse Hewokeo One Se 25 Mi CLARA HORN B00M, A A pili ge > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Sg WA —sEASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF Se KENTUCKY

_3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London)

GLENN SAM BAKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 6:24-CV-47-CHB ) v. ) ) EVE BLANE, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER Defendant. )

*** *** *** ***

Plaintiff Glenn Baker is an inmate confined at the Bell County Detention Center (“BCDC”) in Pineville, Kentucky. Baker has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [R. 1]. The Court has granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis by separate Order. [R. 9]. This matter is before the Court to conduct the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F. 3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). When testing the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court affords it a forgiving construction, accepting as true all non-conclusory factual allegations and liberally construing its legal claims in the plaintiff’s favor. Davis v. Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433, 437–38 (6th Cir. 2012). A district court must dismiss any claim that 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. Hill, 630 F. 3d at 470–71. In his complaint, Baker alleges that Norma Lay, an employee of the United States Postal Service in Pineville, Kentucky, has stolen more than fifty pieces of his incoming and outgoing mail from BCDC and given it to Leamon Partin. [R. 1, pp. 23]. Baker indicates that some of these letters included checks from the United States Department of the Treasury. Id. Baker further alleges that Partin and Candace Vance forged his signature and cashed the checks at a local bank, often using aliases. Id. Baker makes similar allegations against Thresa Sinclair, but he does not name her as a defendant in his complaint. Id. Baker names Lay, Partin, and Vance, as well as Post Master Eve Blane, as defendants. Id. at 1–2. Baker indicates that the legal basis for any claims against the defendants is unknown to him. Id. at 4. Baker does not seek damages,

but requests only that the defendants be prosecuted. Id. at 8. The Court has reviewed Baker’s allegations but will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The mishandling of mail and postal materials can violate various federal criminal statutes. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1700–1713. Certain provisions specifically address mishandling by postal employees. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1703, 1709. But only federal prosecutors, not private citizens or a court, can initiate a federal prosecution. See generally Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973). And the asserted violation of these criminal statutes will not support federal question jurisdiction. See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 767 n.13 (2005); Sciolino v. Marine Midland Bank- Western, 463 F. Supp. 128, 131-32 (W.D.N.Y.

1979). Likewise, the alleged actions of Partin and Vance, whom Baker does not allege are federal employees, amount to violations of Kentucky rather than federal law and will not support subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. Because the allegations of the complaint do not indicate any colorable basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss this action. Chevalier v. Estate of Barnhart, 803 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir. 2015). Baker is advised that a person who believes that his or her mail has been mishandled, stolen, or used to commit fraud may contact the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), which may commence an investigation. See Winston-Bey v. United States, No. CV CCB-15-02020, 2015 WL 8757829, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2015). Contact information may be obtained from USPIS’s website at https://www.uspis.gov/. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Baker’s complaint, [R. 1], is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. This the 15th day of May, 2024. ASS Ta KG Os ip i Conse Hewokeo One Se 25 Mi CLARA HORN B00M, A A pili ge > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Sg WA —sEASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF Se KENTUCKY

_3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Baker v. Blane, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-blane-kyed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack