Couch v. Clay County

• Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky
• Decided: May 9, 2023
• Docket: 6:23-cv-00068
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

MICHAEL WAYNE COUCH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 6: 23-CV-068-CHB v. CLAY COUNTY COMMONWEALTH MEMORANDUM OPINION ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, ET AL., AND ORDER Defendants. *** *** *** *** Michael Wayne Couch is a pretrial detainee at the Clay County Detention Center in Manchester, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Couch recently filed a civil rights complaint with this Court. [R. 8]. That pleading is before the Court on initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Couch names the Clay County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office and two prosecutors in that office as defendants, and he puts forth two substantive factual allegations. See [R. 8, p. 1–3]. Couch first alleges that the defendants are improperly failing to indict an individual who committed crimes because that person’s family “has ruled Clay County for generations.” Id. at 2. Couch then separately alleges that one of the prosecutors “keeps trying to plead me guilty to crimes he knows I did not commit. He has video evidence showing I never hit 3 cops.” Id. at 3. Couch claims that the defendants’ alleged conduct amounts to a violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See id. at 4. For relief, Couch says that he wants “these men held accountable” and “justice to be served.” Id. at 8. Couch also says, “I want Clay County wiped clean of corruption, and I want a job doing it.” Id. The Court has fully reviewed Couch’s complaint and will dismiss it without prejudice for multiple reasons. As an initial matter, Couch’s pleading, as currently drafted, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Even if the Court assumes that Couch’s allegations are true, it does not observe a plausible Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against the named defendants. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (explaining that, in order to survive initial screening, a complaint must contain enough facts, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face). Moreover, the relief that Couch is seeking is exceedingly vague, and thus his pleading does not contain an intelligible or otherwise meaningful demand for relief, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3). And, finally, Couch’s second allegation appears to relate to an ongoing state criminal case, and this Court has already concluded that it would abstain from interfering in that matter. See Michael Wayne Couch vy. Clay County Sheriff's Office, et al., No. 6:23-cv-00042-KKC, at R. 9 (E.D. Ky. April 28, 2023) (discussing the pending state criminal charges against Couch before dismissing his federal lawsuit without prejudice pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). For all of these reasons, Couch’s present pleading is unavailing. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Couch’s complaint [R. 8] is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. 4. The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment. Dated: May 9, 2023. oo Vania fowsBoon Wu . ee COURT JUDGE Seay ~ EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF “as KENTUCKY