Elmore v. City of Memphis, Tennessee et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY ELMORE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 25-cv-02526-SHL-tmp
)
CITY OF MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, )
MEMPHIS CITY COUNCIL, SHELBY )
COUNTY COMMISSION, SHELBY )
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, MEMPHIS )
TOURISM and KEVIN KANE, CHARLES )
EWING, JAMILA SWEARENGEN, )
MEMPHIS ARTS COUNCIL, INDIE )
MEMPHIS, G.A. HARDAWAY, ORANGE )
MOUND ARTS COUNCIL, MARY )
MITCHELL, TONI HOLMON TURNER, )
PAUL YOUNG, DR. W.W. HERENTON, )
SHELBY COUNTY HISTORICAL )
COMMISSION, JIM ROUT, THE )
COMMERCIAL APPEAL, JOHN )
BEIFUSS, and LINN SITLER, )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is pro se plaintiff Anthony Elmore’s
Complaint.1 (ECF No. 1.) Because Elmore is proceeding in forma
pauperis, the undersigned must screen the complaint pursuant to 28
1Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this case has been
referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for
management of all pretrial matters for determination or report and
recommendation, as appropriate.
Case 2:25-cv-02526-SHL-tmp Document 10 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID
<pageID>

- 2 -
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).2 For the reasons below, the undersigned
recommends that Elmore’s complaint be dismissed.
I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Elmore’s complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
the following: “Failure to Support Black History and Culture,”
“Discrimination in Tourism Promotion,” “Intentional Suppression of
a Landmark of World Black History,” “Fraudulent Misuse of Funds
and Position,” “Discrimination by Film Organizations and Media,”
“Failure to Acknowledge Black History,” “Failure to Support
Education and International Diplomacy,” “Violation of Civil
Rights,” and “Suppression of Plaintiff’s Efforts to Promote Black
History and Cultural Exchange.” (ECF No. 2-1 at PageID 8-10.)
Elmore provides only conclusory statements to support his claim,
including how select defendants have “intentionally suppressed”
and “failed to acknowledge” the historical and cultural
contributions of his film, “The Contemporary Gladiator.” (Id. at
PageID 8.) Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of several orders
directing defendants to comply with integrating the historical
significance of his film and promoting Black history and culture
in various ways. Among these requests for relief, Elmore includes
“an order directing the City of Memphis and Shelby County to create
2The undersigned granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on October 29, 2025. (ECF No. 9.)
Case 2:25-cv-02526-SHL-tmp Document 10 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID
<pageID>

- 3 -
a fund a Black Memphis History Museum in the Orange Mound
community,” “an order directing City of Memphis to actively promote
the historical significance of ‘The Contemporary Gladiator’ . . .
and to submit the film to the United States Congressional Film
Registry,” “injunctive relief . . . to remedy discriminatory
practices and promote equitable tourism development that
accurately and fully represents Black history and culture in
Memphis,” and “an order directing the City of Memphis and the State
of Tennessee to install a historical marker acknowledging ‘The
Contemporary Gladiator’ and the Plaintiff’s contributions to
Memphis filmmaking history, and to cease . . . excluding the
Plaintiff from coverage.” (ECF No. 2-1 at PageID 15.)
II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints
and must dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the
action: (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a
claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “A claim is plausible on its face if the
‘plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
Case 2:25-cv-02526-SHL-tmp Document 10 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID
<pageID>

- 4 -
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.’” Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v.
Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 369 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678); see also Crestman as Next Friend to Wooden v. Metro.
Gov’t of Nash. and Davidson Cnty., Tenn., No. 24-6018, 2025 WL
2650582, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 16, 2025). Without factual
allegations in support, mere legal conclusions are not entitled to
the assumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and are thus liberally
construed. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011);
Kremer v. Unilever, PLC, No. 24-cv-01410, 2025 WL 2674556, at *6
(M.D. Tenn Sept. 18, 2025). Even so, pro se litigants must adhere
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Wells v. Brown, 891
F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); Kremer, 2025 WL 2674556, at *6, and
the court cannot create a claim that has not been spelled out in
a pleading. See Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 613 (6th
Cir. 2011); Payne v. Sec’y of Treas., 73 F. App’x 836, 837 (6th
Cir. 2003); Wooden v. Lee, No. 24-cv-01052, 2025 WL 2678796, at *5
(W.D. Tenn. Sept. 18, 2025).
Plaintiff’s complaint is styled as an action brought under §
1983. “To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must first
identify a constitutional right, then show that a person acting
Case 2:25-cv-02526-SHL-tmp Document 10 Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID
<pageID>

- 5 -
under the color of state law deprived him of that right.” Susselman
v. Washtenaw Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 109 F.4th 864, 870 (6th Cir.
2024) (citing Troutman v. Louisville Metro Dep’t of Corr., 979
F.3d 472, 482 (6th Cir. 2020)). It is unclear exactly what
constitutional right Elmore alleges was violated as to each
defendant. However, even if the complaint sufficiently alleged a
constitutional violation, plaintiff fails to provide factual
allegations to support that any of the defendants deprived him of
a constitutional right or acted under the color of state law.
Therefore, he fails to state a claim under § 1983.
Moreover, the undersigned finds that plaintiff lacks
standing. To establish standing, “[t]he plaintiff must have (1)
suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Donovan v.
FirstCredit, Inc., 983 F.3d 246, 251 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016)) (internal
quotations omitted). The alleged injury in fact must be “concrete
and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.” Donovan, 983 F.3d at 251 (quoting Spokeo, 578 U.S.
at 339; Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992))
(internal quotations omitted); see also Holmes v. Publix
Supermarkets, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-2712-MSN-tmp, 2023 WL 11808600, at
*2 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 15, 2023), report and recommendation adopted
Case 2:25-cv-02526-SHL-tmp Document 10 Filed 10/29/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID
<pageID>

- 6 -
by 2024 WL 2208214 (W.D. Tenn. May 16, 2024). Here, other than
potential injuries related to the defendants’ alleged failure to
promote Elmore’s film, plaintiff’s broader grievances regarding
discrimination by defendants are not unique to him. (ECF No. 2-1
at PageID 7-8.) Therefore, plaintiff lacks Article III standing
for those claims.
Elmore also brings a Motion to File Amended Complaint. His
amended complaint proposes additional defendants to be named as
well as new allegations of “misrepresentation of Orange Mound’s
founding history” and “failure of public officials to respond to
community concerns.” (ECF No. 8 at PageID 1-2.) Although plaintiffs
are generally given an “opportunity to amend,” when “it is patently
obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged,”
then “dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failure to
state a claim is appropriate.” Brown, 415 F. App’x at 615; see
also Chapa v. Kenton Cnty. Judge Exec., No. 21-22-BLD-MAS, 2023 WL
4553602, at *10 (E.D. Ky. July 14, 2023). Upon reviewing the
proposed amended complaint, the undersigned finds the amendment
futile because it does not cure Elmore’s failure to state a claim
under § 1983.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above, the undersigned recommends that
plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed.
Case 2:25-cv-02526-SHL-tmp Document 10 Filed 10/29/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID
<pageID>

- 7 -
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
October 29, 2025
Date
NOTICE
WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, ANY PARTY MAY SERVE AND FILE
SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY PARTY MAY RESPOND TO ANOTHER PARTY’S
OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A
COPY. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); L.R.
72.1(g)(2). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS,
EXCEPTIONS, AND FURTHER APPEAL.
Case 2:25-cv-02526-SHL-tmp Document 10 Filed 10/29/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID
<pageID>