govinfo:USCOURTS-kywd-3_25-cv-00708-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
AT LOUISVILLE 
CHARLES ALLAN CRADY et al. PLAINTIFFS 
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25CV-P708-JHM 
LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE 
DEPARTMENT et al. DEFENDANTS 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Plaintiffs Charles Allan Crady and Amber Rae Lickliter (a/k/a Miller) filed  the instant 
action proceeding pro se.  Plaintiff Amber Rae Lickliter also filed a motion to proceed  in forma 
pauperis.  Upon review,  the Court  finds that Plaintiff  makes the financial  showing required  by 
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis (DN 8) is GRANTED.  
Because the action  is brought  in forma pauperis , the Court  must review the complaint 
and amended complaint under 28 U.S.C.  § 1915(e).   McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d  601, 
608-09 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199 (2007).  On 
review, a district court must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action 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.  28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).   
Although courts  are to hold pro se  pleadings “ to less stringent standards  than formal 
pleadings drafted by lawyers, ” Haines  v.  Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972),  this  duty to be  less 
stringent “does not require [the Court] to conjure up unpled allegations, ” McDonald v. Hall, 610 
F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a claim for a plaintiff.  Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. 
Co., 518 F.2d  1167, 1169  (6th Cir.  1975).   To  command  otherwise  would  require  courts  “ to 
explore exhaustively all potential claims  of a  pro  se plaintiff,  [and] would also  transform the 
Case 3:25-cv-00708-JHM     Document 9     Filed 03/09/26     Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the 
strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party. ”  Beaudett v. City of Hampton , 
775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). 
In the original complaint, Plaintiffs sued the Louisville Metro Police Department, the 
City of Louisville, and John Doe Officer #1 alleging a claim for wrongful death under Kentucky 
law and claims for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  The complaint stated, 
“Plaintiff Amber Rae Lickliter is the sister and next of kin of Jason Thomas Lickliter (deceased) 
and brings this action on behalf of his estate and herself.”  Above that statement was 
handwritten, “Charles Crady or[,]” but the complaint did not state Crady’s relationship to Jason 
Thomas Lickliter. 
An action for wrongful death under Kentucky law may only be brought by the “personal 
representative of the deceased.”  Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.130(1); Walker v. S. Health Partners , 
No. 5:20-397-DCR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224422, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 1, 2020).  Moreover, a 
claim under § 1983 is “entirely personal to the direct victim of the alleged constitutional tort. ” 
Foos v. City of Del aware, 492 F. App ’x 582, 592 (6th Cir. 2012).  As such, “only the purported 
victim, or his estate ’s representative(s), may prosecute a section 1983 claim. ”  Claybrook v. 
Birchwell, 199 F.3d 350, 357 (6th Cir. 2000). 
The Court entered a Memorandum and Order  (DN 6)  finding that Plaintiffs failed to 
establish that either of them was the appointed representative of the estate of Jason Thomas 
Lickliter and that they therefore could not bring this action on his or his estate’s behalf.  Before 
dismissing the action on that basis, however, the Court gave Plaintiffs the opportunity to file an 
amended complaint in which the personal representative of Jason Thomas Lickliter’s estate was 
named as Plaintiff.   
Case 3:25-cv-00708-JHM     Document 9     Filed 03/09/26     Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
Plaintiff Amber Rae Lickliter has how filed an amended complaint (DN 7).  She again 
states, “Plaintiff Amber Rae Lickliter is the sister and next of kin of Jason Thomas Lickliter 
(deceased) and brings this action on behalf of his estate and herself.”  The amended complaint 
gives no indication that she has been appointed the personal representative of Jason Thomas 
Lickliter’s estate.  While Amber Rae Lick liter states that she is the next of kin of J ason Thomas 
Lickliter, a next of kin is not the proper party to bring suit for wrongful death; such a claim must 
be brought by the appointed representative of the estate.  See Trimble v. Comair, Inc. (In re Air 
Crash at Lexington) , No. 5:06 -cv-316-KSF, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12311, at *30 (E.D. Ky. 
Feb. 20, 20 07) (citing Birkenshaw v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co. , 889 S.W.2d 804, 806  
(Ky. 1994)).  Moreover, to the exte nt Plain tiff may be alleging a state-law claim for loss of 
consortium, which would be personal to her, a loss of consortium claim cannot be brought by a 
sibling of a deceased person  under Kentucky law.  Shemwell v. Thompson , No. 2023-CA-0021-
MR, 2024 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8, at *13-14 (Ky. App. Jan. 5, 2024). 
In regard to Plaintiff’s claims for violation s of constitutional rights under § 1983, “only 
the purported victim, or his estate ’s representative(s), may prosecute a section 1983 claim. ” 
Claybrook v. Birchwell, 199 F.3d 350, 357 (6th Cir. 2000).   Therefore, a § 1983 claim asserting 
violation of const itutional rights caus ing a dea th may only be brought by the appointed 
representative of the deceased person ’s estate  and may not by brought by a next of kin.  
See Zimmermann v. Labish , Case No. 2:22 -cv-12338, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107057, at *16 
(E.D. Mich. May 12, 2023) (recommending dismissal of § 1983 claim for failure to state a claim 
where pro se plaintiffs “neither attach [ed], nor cite [ed] proof of ” appointment as a personal 
representative), report and recommendation adopted , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176497  (E.D. 
Mich. Sept. 29, 2023) ; Grady v. Madison C nty., No. 1:19-cv-01153-STA-tmp, 2020 U.S. Dist. 
Case 3:25-cv-00708-JHM     Document 9     Filed 03/09/26     Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
4
LEXIS 99145, at *13 (W.D. Tenn. June 5, 2020) (dismissing claim for failure to state a claim 
finding that “[t]here is no reason to conclude from the Complaint that [the decedent’s mother] is 
the duly appointed personal representative of [the decedent’s] estate”).
For these re asons, the Court f inds that Plaintiffs are not t he proper p arties to br ing this 
suit.  Ha ving given Plaintiffs the opportunity to file an amended complaint to name the proper
party, and Plaintiffs having failed to do so, this case must be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:
cc: Plaintiffs, pro se
4414.010
March 9, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00708-JHM     Document 9     Filed 03/09/26     Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight