Pelly v. Jackson Police Department et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
BRANDON PELLY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-01126-STA-jay
JACKSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
C.J.C.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Brandon Pelly filed a lawsuit against the Jackson Police Department and the
C.J.C. (Docket Entry [“D.E.”] 1.) The Court is required to conduct a screening of this action
because Pelly sought and received in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (D.E.
2, 6.) This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management of all
pretrial matters and for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. Admin.
Order 2013-05.
I.
Pelly filed his Pro Se Complaint on May 21, 2025, using the official form for complaints
for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.E. 1.) In the Statement of Claim portion of
his complaint, Pelly alleges:
On May 1st, I am disabled with multiple conditions. I had passed out on way to
home. Bus Driver put me off bus before my stop, and I was unable to make it home,
on the street of East Chester, right towards East Pointe Apartments.
Officers came, hit me, and tased me, resulting in a bloody face and marks from
being tased. Not only mouth, tongue, and cheeks were bite. I have photos, from
Case 1:25-cv-01126-STA-jay Document 10 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

2
nurse at jail, and on my phone the day of incident. They stripped my clothes off and
never returned any of the items I had on my person.
(Id. at 2–3, § IV., PageID 2-3). In terms of relief, Pelly seeks “a settlement, cause I lost my
job and reputation. I would like a class action settlement, or $250,000 settlement.” (Id. at 3, § V,
PageID 3.)
On September 30, 2025, the undersigned ordered Pelly to amend his Complaint. (D.E. 7).
In that Order, the undersigned determined that Pelly was attempting to assert an excessive force
claim under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Id.) Pelly was specifically
ordered to amend his Complaint to
identify and add as defendants which individuals he claims used excessive force
against him, and, if he is seeking to name Madison County, Tennessee, as a
defendant, he must allege how the constitutional violations he claims to have
suffered were a result of an official Madison County policy or custom.
(Id. at 4).
On October 6, 2025, Pelly filed an Amended Complaint. (D.E. 8). In his Amended
Complaint, Pelly lists “(Howell) 2025 body camera May 1, 2025” and “May 1, 2025 – Officer CS
Corrections officers as CJC Madison County” as Defendants. (Id. at 1-2). He adds to this Statement
of Claim: “N/A May 1st, 2025 – CJC – July 4th 2025 Property Missing Cell Phone at 110 Adams
St.”. (Id. at 2). For relief, Pelly states “I would like to have my social security open so I’m able to
get healthy. 5 years been in pain and no one to help! Then police officers hits me and makes it
worst. $40,000.” (Id. at 3).
On November 18, 2025, Pelly filed a Second Amended Complaint. (D.E. 9). In this
pleading, he identifies “CJC/Yvette Cross” and “Officer at scene July 4, 2025” as Defendants and
states that Sgt. Howell should be dismissed. (Id. at 1-2). He alleges that: “Yvette Cross was first
at residence to retrieve keys. In which was headed to her thru the door. I closed door and waited
Case 1:25-cv-01126-STA-jay Document 10 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

3
til owner of vehicle arrived. In which 20 mins later officers were there but Yvette Cross was not
on scene.” (Id. at 2-3). Pelly amends the relief he seeks to: “If phone recover 0. With no knowledge
of hacked, from unusual sm-156v on my emails. If not negotiations will start.” (Id. at 3).
II.
A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Screening
Under Local Rule 4.1(b)(2), the Clerk of the Court will only issue summonses in cases with
non-prisoner pro se plaintiffs who are proceeding in forma pauperis at the Court’s direction after
the Court conducts a screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under that provision, the Court
shall dismiss the case at any time if it determines that 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.”
B. Standard of Review for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations
of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no
longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). 	Of course,
“dismissal on these grounds is appropriate ‘only in the rarest of circumstances where . . . the
complaint is deemed totally implausible.’” Lynch, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213765, at *9 (quoting
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 53637 (1974)). This standard requires that “[t]he claims . . . be
‘flimsier than doubtful or questionable—they must be essentially fictitious.’” Id. at *9 (quoting
Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). When a court dismisses a complaint under Rule
12(b)(1), the same opportunity to amend need not be provided as when a complaint is dismissed
under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at *10 (citing Apple, 183 F.3d at 479 (“Tingler’s requirement that a
Case 1:25-cv-01126-STA-jay Document 10 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

4
plaintiff be given the opportunity to amend does not apply to sua sponte dismissals for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to Hagans.”)).
III.
Pelly’s Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Pelly
fails to make any factual allegations against the one named Defendant Yvette Cross, and fails to
articulate any causes of action. Even considering his original Complaint, Amended Complaint, and
Second Amended Complaint as a whole, his factual allegations fail to establish any actionable
claims against any parties. Further, Pelly has amended his Complaint twice and not set forth any
causes of action. As such, his Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed as frivolous.
IV.
For these reasons, Plaintiff Brandon Pelly’s Second Amended Complaint should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Respectfully submitted, this, the 21st day of November, 2025.
s/Jon A. York
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MUST BE FILED WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A
COPY OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). FAILURE
TO FILE THEM WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER
AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ANY FURTHER
APPEAL.
Case 1:25-cv-01126-STA-jay Document 10 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID
<pageID>