Lawson v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 21 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-CV-310-HRW |
| Parties | JERRY W. LAWSON PLAINTIFF v. COY WILSON, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
Jerry W. Lawson, confined in the Clay County Detention Center ("CCDC") in Manchester Kentucky, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights Complaint alleging that Defendants Coy Wilson, Rick Baker, Steve Meadors, and the Police Department of Corbin, Kentucky unreasonably searched his vehicle and filed criminal charges against him, that the Knox Circuit Court has denied him due process of law in a pending criminal proceeding, and that another county jail denied him proper medical treatment. Lawson also asserts § 1983 claims against his court-appointed attorney representing him in his state court criminal proceeding.
As Lawson has previously been granted in forma pauperis status, and because he asserts claims against government officials, the Court must screen the Complaint and Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e). Both of these sections require a district court to dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which may be granted, or seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. Id. §§ 1915(e) and 1915 A.
The Clerk of the Court will be directed to amend the docket sheet to reflect that Lawson's submission Docket Number 9 is an Amended Complaint, and to designate additional persons and entities as defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the claims which Lawson asserts in both his original Complaint and his Amended Complaint will be dismissed.
The following is a summary the allegations in Lawson's original eight-page Complaint [Docket Nos. 2 (pages 1-4) and 8 (pages 5-8)].1 Lawson alleges that while he and another individual were riding in a vehicle in Corbin, Kentucky, on January 14, 2010, Defendants Wilson, Baker, and Meadors, all City of Corbin police officers, illegally pulled them over; searched the vehicle; questioned them about a rash of broken car windows in Corbin; demanded proof of insurance on the vehicle; and filed criminal charges against Lawson.
Lawson alleges that on previous occasions the defendants had stopped him under the pretext of not having car insurance, and that they should have obtained a search warrant on January 14, 2010. Lawson states that the criminal charges filed against him in the Knox Circuit Court resulting from the January 14, 2010, search of his vehicle were subsequently dismissed. Lawson attached what appears to be a part of a Knox Circuit Court docket sheet showing the following April 23, 2010, disposition of four drug charges filed against him in Case No. 10-F-00024 on January 14, 2010: "Dismiss After Present to Grand Jury" [Docket No. 2-1, p.2].2 Lawson alleged that despite the dismissal of those charges, he has been in jail for 12 months; has "lost everything" he owns; and has suffered a stroke and declining health [Docket No. 8, p. 4]. Lawson did not, however, explain why he has remained in custody of the CCDC after the dismissal of the January 14, 2010 methamphetamine charges.
Lawson claims that both the prior episodes of harassment and the search of his vehicle on January 14, 2010, violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. As Lawson alleges that the criminal charges resulting from the January 14, 2010, search were later dismissed, he also assertsconstrued malicious prosecution and/or abuse of process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees due process of law.
On January 28, 2011, Lawson submitted pages 5-8 of his original Complaint [Docket No. 8]. He clarified that he wanted to assert claims against the Knox Circuit Court and the Corbin Police Department, stating as follows:
Lawson also asked permission to assert Eighth Amendment medical claims against the Knox County Jail. Although Lawson is confined in the CCDC, and has been confined there since filing this action on November 10, 2011, he alleged that the Knox County Jail had denied him proper eye medication by giving him "outdated" eye drops for a year. Lawson did not state when the Knox County Jail had allegedly denied him proper eye medication, but that:
Lawson seeks unspecified damages to compensate him for all of his "losses" and an Order directing the Knox Circuit Court to clear his record of "all of these charges."
On February 10, 2011, Lawson filed a letter asserting additional claims, which the Court construes as an Amended Complaint [Docket No. 9].3 Lawson challenges a criminal proceeding pending against him in the Knox Circuit Court, which he identifies as being Case No. 10-F-00024, the same criminal proceeding in which methamphetamine charges were filed against him on January 14, 2010, and dismissed on April 23, 2010.
Lawson did not identify the criminal charges pending against him in that proceeding, but reiterated that as of that date, he had been in jail for almost twelve months. Lawson states that on February 4, 2011, his civil rights were violated when a prosecution witness failed to appear at a suppression hearing for the sixth time. Lawson alleges that based on the failure of that witness to appear, the pending charges should have been dismissed. Lawson's claim, that his criminal prosecutionin Case No. 10-F-00024 violates his right to due process of law, falls under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Finally, Lawson alleges that his court-appointed defense attorney, Wendy Craig of the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, failed to acknowledge him or represent him at the hearing, and that another attorney had to step in and represent him. Lawson states that the suppression hearing has been continued until May 27, 2011. He seeks permission to name Wendy Craig as a defendant to this proceeding.
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys. Wagenknect v. United States, 533 F.3d 412, 415 (6th Cir. 2008). At the screening phase, the allegations and legal arguments in a pro se complaint must be taken as true and construed in favor the plaintiff's favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007). However, as noted, a district court must dismiss any case which it determines is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
1. Claims Against Wilson. Baker. Meadors. and the Corbin Police Department
The claims against City of Corbin police officers Wilson, Baker, Meadors, and the Corbin Police Department will be dismissed without prejudice because they arebarred by the abstention doctrine, under which a district court must abstain from exercising its subject matter jurisdiction over claims which would result in unnecessary interference with ongoing state judicial proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37(1971).
Lawson alleges that because the drug charges filed against him on January 14, 2010, in Knox Circuit Court Case No. 10-F-0024 were dismissed on April 23, 2010, he is being illegally prosecuted in Knox Circuit Court in violation of the due process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawson either ignores, or is unaware of, the fact that although the Knox Circuit Grand Jury did not indict him in Case No. 10-F-0024 on April 23, 2010, it did indict him on the same drug/methamphetamine charges one month later, on May 28, 2010 resulting in Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Lawson, Knox Circuit Case No. 10-CR-00082-01.
Lawson alleges that the dismissal of the charges on April 23,2010, should bar his current prosecution, but his premise is incorrect. Pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.22(3), the failure of the grand jury to return an indictment, i.e., a charge that results in a "No True Bill," is not a dismissal with prejudice, and the Commonwealth is permitted to submit the charge to another grand jury. Therefore, the Grand Jury's decision not to indict Lawson on April 23, 2010, did not prevent a Grand Jury impaneled one month later from indicting him on the same charges. SeeMalone v. Commonwealth, 30 S.W.3d, 18 0, 182 (Ky. 2000) ("If no indictment is returned, constituting a "no true bill," the prosecutor may resubmit the case to another grand jury."); see also Commonwealth v. Holloway, 225 S.W.3d 404,406 (Ky. App. 2007) ().
Moreover, Lawson has not been subjected to double jeopardy by the subsequent indictment in Case No. 10-CR-0082. Neither double jeopardy nor collateral estoppel defenses apply to multiple grand jury proceedings and indictments cannot be attacked because of insufficient evidence. Russell v. Commonwealth, 405 S.W.2d 683, 684. (Ky.1966); see also Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.10 ().
Thus, a criminal proceeding is currently pending against Lawson in the Knox Circuit Court, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial