UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
`AT LOUISVILLE
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25CV-P340-JHM
`
`SALEM NAGDY PLAINTIFF
`
`v.
`
`MEMBERS OF (KY. MAS) STEALTH ALLIANCE
`OF MALICE, KENTUCKY MALFEASANCE
`ASSOCIATION et al. DEFENDANTS
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`Plaintiff Salem Nagdy filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action . Plaintiff filed a
`complaint (DN 1) and subsequently filed an amended complaint (DN 8). In the amended
`complaint, Plaintiff sued the jury foreperson in his state -court criminal trial and listed that
`individual’s name and employer. The Court entered an Order (DN 12) directing the Clerk of Court
`to fil e the amended complaint under seal and to redact the name and employer of the jury
`foreperson and to change that Defendant’s name to “Jury Foreperson” in the docket sheet. The
`Clerk then docketed the redacted amended complaint (DN 13). The Court construes the redacted
`amended complaint as a motion to amend the complaint and GRANTS the motion. See Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
`This matter is before the Court on an initial review of the redacted amended complaint
`(DN 13) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the
`action.
`I. SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
` In the caption of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff lists the following Defendants: “33
`Members of (KY. MAS)”; Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mitch Perry; prosecutor Christie Foster;
`courtroom bailiff Mike Brown; St. Matthews Police Department Officers Jeffrey D. May and Mark
`Case 3:25-cv-00340-JHM Document 20 Filed 10/22/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Richardson; Bill Smock , an e xpert witness; Dr . Christopher Krieg and Dr. Jay Schuhmann,
`employed by Emergency Medical Associates, Inc., and Norton Healthcare; Shallon R. Griesharber,
`a nurse employed by No rton Healthcare; the Jury Foreperson in Plaintiff’s state-court criminal
`trial; prosecutors Dorely Gilbert, Jeanne Anderson, Danielle Yanelli, and Jane Cizer; St. Matthews
`Police Department Officers Richard Hageman and Jeremy Meyer; Jefferson County District Court
`Judge Ann Dela hanty; Kentucky appellate court judges Glenn Acree, La rry Thompson, John
`Minton, Jr., and L.B. Vanmeter; Louisville Metro Public Defenders Allison Rief, Carlos W ood,
`and Euva May; Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy attorneys Sam Potter, David S tewart,
`and Elias Soon Jae Kang -Bartlett; Louisville Metro Government; Jefferson County Sher iff’s
`Department; City o f S t. Matthews; Norton Healthcare; Emergency Medical Associates, Inc.;
`Kentucky Bar Association; Jeff Cross, the Deputy Solicitor General; a John/Jane Doe Justice of
`the Ke ntucky Supreme Court; Erwin Robert, the First Assi stant Commo nwealth Attorney ; a
`John/Jane Doe investigator with the Judicial Conduct Commission; a John/Jane Doe Chief of the
`St. Matthew Police Department; and a John/Jane Doe who “was in charge of SMPD (CID) unit on
`10-19-2016.”
` Plaintiff states that Defendants “ willfully took part [as willful & loyal members in a secret
`cult of corrupt, morally dep raved and spiritually blinded individuals] in a grand criminal
`misconduct conspiracy . . . . ”1 Plaintiff alleges that on October 19, 2016, he was injected with
`multiple drugs in the emergency room of Norton Healthcare without his consent because
`Defendant Dr. Krief thought Plaintiff w as being uncooperative. He states that while he was
`sedated he was stripped naked and interrogated in the emergency room by Defendant Officer May.
`He alleges that Defendant Officers May, Richardson, Hageman, and Meyer “kidnap[ped]” him
`
`1 In the first page of the statement of claim, Plaintiff lists a litany of statutes and constitutional provisions. Because
`these are not factual allegations, the Court does not restate those herein.
`Case 3:25-cv-00340-JHM Document 20 Filed 10/22/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`while he was heavily sedated and transported him to the St. Matthews Police Department,
`interrogated him, and unlawfully seized and searched his i -pad, cellphone, passport, car, and his
`landscape equipment.
` Plaintiff states that unspecified Defendants charged him with domestic violence and
`transported him to Louisville Metro Department of Corrections while he was heavily sedated. He
`states that his charges were changed to multiple felonies by Defendants Prosecutor Cizer, Officer
`May, and District Judge Delahanty and that they were aided by his first court -appointed lawyer
`Defendant Rief. He asserts that an “Unnamed Defendant” “attempt[ed] to extort $25,000 out of
`[him] through the false excuse of ‘resolving Nagdy’s case’ ‘or else.” Plaintiff states that he was
`subject to “a nightmare of completely sham court proceedings, a sham trial and a sham and
`fraudulent verdict and a sentence of 31 years.”2 He states that Defendant Courtroom Bailiff Brown
`“was instrumental in obtaining t hat fraudulent verdict. ” He alleges that the Defendant Jury
`Foreperson and Defendants Judge Perry, Prosecutor Foster, and Bailiff Brown “worked in stealth
`as a team to obtain that fraudulent verdict.” Plaintiff states that Defendants Officer May and
`Smock, an expert witness, knowingly gave perjured tes timony. He states, “[T]he extra -ordinary
`malicious prosecution led by [Defendant Judge] Perry leading a team of [Defendants Prosecutors]
`Foster [and] Yanelli, & others through a well hidden secret communication network that Nagdy
`fully unlocked on 3 -27-2025.” Finall y, Plaintiff maintains, “All other defendants knowingly
`participated in the cover-up.”
`As relief, Plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages and release from custody.
`
`
`
`2 Plaintiff cites to the video record of his trial, which he filed in this action as a CD.
`Case 3:25-cv-00340-JHM Document 20 Filed 10/22/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`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).
`In order to survive 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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544,
`570 (2007)). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the
`plaintiff and (2) take all well -pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers,
`USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th
`Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). “But the district court need not accept a ‘bare assertion of legal
`conclusions.’” Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum , 58 F.3d
`1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)). Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held
`to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
`519, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), “[o]ur duty to be ‘less
`stringent’ with pro se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations.” McDonald
`v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted).
`III. ANALYSIS
`Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, under color of state law,
`causes the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. A
`Case 3:25-cv-00340-JHM Document 20 Filed 10/22/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`claim under § 1983 must therefore allege two elements: (1) the deprivation of federal statutory or
`constitutional rights by (2) a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
`48 (1988); Flint v. Ky. Dep’t of Corr., 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir. 2001). Absent either element,
`no § 1983 claim exists. Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 1991).
`A. “33 Members of (KY. MAS)”
` Plaintiff lists “33 Members of (KY. MAS)” as a Defendant in the caption of the redacted
`amended complaint. He listed this Defendant in the original complaint as “Members of (KY.
`MAS) Stealth Alliance of Malice, Kentucky Malfeasance Association ,” which is the Defendant
`named in the case caption of this action. Plaintiff does not state specific allegations against either
`of these Defendants in his pleadings. Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not intend to
`name an additional Defendant but used these monikers to label the group that he believed the other
`listed Defendants belonged to. T herefore, any claims against the “33 Members of (KY. MAS)”
`and “Members of (KY. MAS) Stealth Alliance of Malice, Kentucky Malfeasance Association ”
`will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`B. Medical providers
` Plaintiff sues De fendant Dr. Krieg, Dr. Jay Sch umann, Nurse Grieshaber, Norton
`Healthcare, and Emergency Medical Associates , I nc. While Plaintiff only makes allegations
`against Defendant Dr. Krieg in his statement of claim, the Court presumes that his claims against
`the other medical provider Defendants arise out of the same October 19, 201 6, encounter in the
`Norton Healthcare emergency room.
`A private entity acting on its own cannot deprive a citizen of his or her constitutional rights.
`See Lansing v. City of Memphis , 202 F.3d 821, 828 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Flagg Bros., Inc. v.
`Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978)); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)). Section 1983 does not
`Case 3:25-cv-00340-JHM Document 20 Filed 10/22/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`create a cause of action against a private actor “‘no matter how discriminatory or wrongful ’ the
`party’s conduct.” Tahfs v. Proctor , 316 F.3d 584, 590 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut.
`Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999)). Norton Healthcare, Emergency Medical Associates,
`Inc., and their employees are not arms of the state but are private actors that cannot be held liable
`under § 1983. See Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 688 (6th Cir. 2006) (allegation t hat hospital
`was subject to state licensing was insufficient to support finding it was acting under color of state
`law); Bernazard v. Bartsich, No. 15-CV-945 (JG), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3131, at * 6 (E.D.N.Y.
`Jan. 9, 2016) (“[T]he mere fact that Jamaica Hos pital was the receiving hospital of a patient shot
`by a New York City Police officer does not make it or the defendant physicians’ actions so
`entwined with governmental policies or so impregnated with a governmental character as to
`become subject to the co nstitutional limitations placed upon state action.” ) (internal quotation
`marks and citation omitted); Raper v. Controneo , No. 1:17 -cv-368, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`154005, at *10-11 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2017) (holding that a private physician who performed
`surgery on the prisoner plaintiff at an offsite hospital was not state actor) ; Rosario v. Washington
`Mem’l Hosp., No. CIV.A. 12-1799, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70012, at *11 (W.D. Pa. May 17, 2013)
`(“While Plaintiff was an arrestee at the time he was brought to the Washington Memorial Hospital,
`that fact does not transform the Washington Memorial Hospital or any of its agents into entities
`who acted under color of state law in treating Plaintiff . . . .”); Ketola v. Clearwater, No. 1:08-cv-
`31, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104205, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2008) (holding that even if the
`defendant hospital and its physician “treated [the prisoner plaintiff] at the state ’s request and
`expense, they did not thereby become state actors ”). Therefore, the § 1983 claims against the
`medical provider Defendants must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
`be granted.
`Case 3:25-cv-00340-JHM Document 20 Filed 10/22/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`C. Remaining defendants
` Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defenda nts arise out of his arrest and conviction.
`Plaintiff states in the complaint that he was convicted and sentenced to 31 years in 2018. The
`Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff was found guilty of kidnapping resulting in serious
`physical injury, first -degree assault, eavesdropping, and second -degree stalking in Jefferson
`Circuit Court. See Nagdy v. Commonwealth, No. 2018-SC-000565-MR, 2020 Ky. Unpub. LEXIS
`18, at *1 (Ky. Mar. 26, 2020). He appealed, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the
`conviction. Id. at *25. He also filed a Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 60.02 motion, which
`was denied, and the denial was affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. See Nagdy v.
`Commonwealth, Nos. 2021-CA-1098-MR and 2021-CA-1099-MR, 2023 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS
`253, at *1 (Ky. App. Apr. 21, 2023).
` In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 -87 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a state
`prisoner could not state a cognizable claim under § 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional
`conviction or for “harm caused by ac tions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
`sentence invalid” unless a prisoner showed that the conviction or sentence had been “reversed on
`direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make
`such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”
`Id. (footnote omitted). This principle holds true whether the plaintiff seeks damages or equitable
`relief. Wilkerson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 -82 (2005). Plaintiff’s conviction was not reversed
`on appeal or otherwise invalidated. The Court has carefully reviewed the complaint and finds that
`all of the allegations against the Defendants other than the medical provider Defendants challenge
`the validity of his conviction, which is not permitted under Heck. Therefore, the claims will be
`dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`Case 3:25-cv-00340-JHM Document 20 Filed 10/22/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 81
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`IV. CONCLUSION
`The Court will enter a separate Order dismissing the action for the reasons stated herein.
`Date:
`cc: Plaintiff, pro se
`4414.010
`October 22, 2025
`Case 3:25-cv-00340-JHM Document 20 Filed 10/22/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`