Ronnie Clark v. Jeremy Ball et al.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky
DecidedDecember 2, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-00482
StatusUnknown

This text of Ronnie Clark v. Jeremy Ball et al. (Ronnie Clark v. Jeremy Ball et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ronnie Clark v. Jeremy Ball et al., (W.D. Ky. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE

RONNIE CLARK PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25CV-P482-JHM

JEREMY BALL et al. DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Ronnie Clark filed the instant pro se prisoner 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. This matter is now before the Court on an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the action. I. SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff is a convicted inmate at Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR). He sues the following individuals employed at KSR: Jeremy Ball, Anna Valentine, Phillip Cambell, Nurse Shawn, Timothy Gordon, Abigail Dawkins, Kimberly Thompson, Travis St. Clair, Greg Billings, and Josh Shanks. Plaintiff begins his complaint with 11 pages of words and definitions which he describes as “definitions for reference.” The first is the word “oscillation” for which he highlights the following definition: “a flow of electricity changing periodically from a maximum to a minimum or from positive to negative when an electrical system with capacitance and inductance is disturbed from equilibrium.” The words and definitions include many variations on “oscillate,” variations on “crystal,” and the word “electrode.” The statement of claim, consisting of 19 handwritten pages, states as follows: The administrators, phsycriatric staff, Aramark employees, nursing dept., maintanence dept. and individuals on the street who belong to a rouge group of mostly Department of Corrections employees. Have manipulated the electrical, and security system and converted it to a very abusive technological system. Its an advanced neurological transmitter, rectifying detector, and crystal microphone system and intigrated it into the Kentucky penitentiary system. I know for fact its used at K.S.P., G.R.C.C., L.S.C.C., and where I’m currently housed, and located at Kentucky State Reformatory. This is a very elaborate, and sophisticated system beyond most human beings minds to be able to comprehend. Thats the way it was structured and specifically put in effect to abuse inmates. It makes an inmate unbeknownst to their knowledge, and against our will have to be a conductor, and a converter of the prison’s converted piezoelectric lighting system. When the prisons lighting system all use dielectric crystal bulbs, or the use of LED crystal bulbs it converts the whole electrical system to now run on a peizoelectricity. Then the prison has hooked up a neurological transmitter to the camera, and security system that runs on and is connected to computers. The (VERINT) camera system meaning video, electrical, rectifying, illuminating, neurological technology, or transmitter. Allow these tech savy rouge staff to use the computers to make graphs of inmates through the camera system, or osciligraphs then take the graph after its electromagnetized and reconnect it to the inmates re-graphing. Then force piezoelectrical current in which these facilities now run on, through inmates body 24-7 against the inmates will. This infusion or electrical diffusion then is exstracted from the inmate as electromagnetic radiation. The inmate has been made into a human crystal oscillator.

. . .

So they committ sexual abuse with electrical current! As well as physical abuse all outside of the inmates control. This electromagnetic radiation exstracted from the inmate and staff creates an electro magnetic field around the whole facility. This creates radiowaves electromagnetic, and or electrostatic waves. This allows a crystal, or rectifying detector and crystal microplane, crystal electrode sequence to be established and used by the staff to speak and receive invisible communications to and from the inmate, and to and from the staff, or abusive parties. This again can not be controlled by the inmate either. Those staff constantly abuse the inmate by antagonizing, and berating them. The inmate can not turn the frequency off the voices from those people will not be stoped period! Most of these conversations are very sexual in nature, and try to intimidate, or manipulate the inmate to sexually act out mentally, or physically for these people.

The statement of claim continues along similar lines, alleging that these actions violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. He also alleges that he was “refused medical attention for the burns received to penis from the relentless inducing of this electrical current.” He states that he asked “to be treated for piezoelectrical burns to my penis due to this converted electrical system at K.S.R.” In addition, he asserts violation of his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments on the following basis These people who are supervising officials have allowed if not fully facilitated there co-workers and employees to speak non-stop propaganda about Satanism and me denouncing my Christian faith or they would kill me! As well as sent me years worth of demonic, and Satanic mental video visuals both computer and kinetically enhanced straight to my brain against my will and my refusals only made them abuse me more.

As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. II. ANALYSIS When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of it, if the court determines that the complaint 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. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1199 (6th Cir. 1990). The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are “‘fantastic or delusional’” in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328). Upon review of the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations meet the standard for frivolousness. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328 (allowing for the dismissal of “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar”); Dunn v. Kemp, No. 5:24-cv-473-MTT, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87795, at *4, 6 (M.D. Ga. May 8, 2025) (dismissing as frivolous a prisoner’s claim that “‘[t]he Government is using

electromagnetic and ps[y]chotronic weapons, E.M.F.

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

Related

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Denton v. Hernandez
504 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Jones v. Bock
549 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Hill v. Lappin
630 F.3d 468 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Thomas L. Apple v. John Glenn, U.S. Senator
183 F.3d 477 (Sixth Circuit, 1999)
Selvy v. Department of Housing & Urban Development
371 F. Supp. 2d 905 (E.D. Michigan, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ronnie Clark v. Jeremy Ball et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronnie-clark-v-jeremy-ball-et-al-kywd-2025.