govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-5_25-cv-00471-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON 
 
GWENDOLYN N. CECIL,  
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 5: 25-471-KKC 
v.  
FAYETTE DISTRICT COURT, et al., MEMORANDUM OPINION 
AND ORDER 
Defendants.  
***   ***   ***   *** 
 Gwendolyn Cecil is a resident of Sarasota, Flor ida.  Cecil initiated this action by filing a 
civil complaint and paying th e requisite filing fee.  See [R. 1].  In her pleading, Cecil expressed 
her belief that since 2021, she and/or her affairs were (or may have been) placed under the authority 
of a conservator or guardian in Fayette County, Kentucky, who in turn may have monitored her 
behavior or “stalked” her.  See id. at 2-3.  Cecil indicated that she was never given notice of such 
proceedings, the nature of which she does not id entify, but nonetheless experienced “isolation” 
and unspecified restrictions on her liberty and communication.  See id.  She further alleged that 
her brother Darrell Newsome and her former partner Bryon Sturg ill stalked her, made false 
allegations regarding her, and attempted to take some of her assets; however, Cecil did not name 
these individuals as defendants.  See id. at 2-3.  Instead, Cecil named as defendants various state 
courts, state court clerks, state agencies, and unidentified conservators or guardians.  See id. at. 1.  
Cecil claimed violation of her right to due process and access to the courts, as well as rights arising 
under state law.  See [R. 1 at 3-4].  For relief, Cecil sought a Court Order requiring the defendants 
to provide her with information and records re garding any proceeding naming another person as 
her guardian or conservator or giving them a power of attorney over her affairs.  See id. at 4-5. 
Case: 5:25-cv-00471-KKC     Doc #: 11     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
2 
 
 Shortly thereafter, the Court issued a show cause order pursuant to Tingler v. Marshall , 
716 F.2d 1109, 1112 (6th Cir. 1983).  See [R. 4].  The Court noted that Cecil’s complaint listed 
job titles rather than viable defendants; did not affirmatively allege anything more than a suspicion 
that a guardianship or conservatorship had actually been implemented; and did not clearly allege 
how any named defendant had violated her constitutional rights.  See id . at 1-2.  The Court 
therefore ordered Cecil to submit a new complain t, making clear allegations and asserting viable 
claims, upon peril of dismissal.  See id. at. 2-3. 
 As directed, Cecil has filed an amended complaint.  See [R. 5].  As she did in her original 
complaint, Cecil lists nearly all of the defendants only by generic job title. 1  Cecil identifies five 
defendants by name, including April Welbaum, Debra Parsons, Darrell Newsome, Bryon Sturgill, 
and Bonita Akers.  Cecil alleges that four of th ese persons surreptitiously monitored or recorded 
her activities, whether in person or digitally, or otherwise gathered personal or medical information 
about her, and reported or used that information to control or manipulate her.  See [R. 5 at 9].  She 
alleges that two of the defendants also harassed or threatened her.  See id .  Cecil makes no 
allegations against defendant Akers. 
 The Court has thoroughly reviewed the amended complaint, but concludes that it must be 
dismissed for failure to state a claim.  First, with respect to the five individuals identified by name 
as defendants, Cecil does not allege that a ny of these persons are government employees or 
officials.   Her allegations ther efore do not imply that any of th ese persons acted “under color of 
law” as required to support liability under Section 1983.  The “ under color of law” requirement 
 
1   See id . at 1 (listing defendants as “Officials in Kentucky acting under color of law, Judges, 
APS/CPS/GAL’s, social workers/ investigators, Ja ne Doe (police officer), Guardians, Conservators, 
POA’s (April Welbaum, Darrell Newsome, Byron Sturg ill, Debra Parsons, Bonita Akers, and/or any 
other person that restrained my life without notice.”).  See also id. at 10-11. 
Case: 5:25-cv-00471-KKC     Doc #: 11     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 2 of 4 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
3 
 
typically excludes private parties from the scope of Section 1983.  Rudd v. City of Norton Shores, 
Michigan, 977 F.3d 503, 512 (6th Cir. 2020); American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan , 526 U.S. 
40, 50 (1999) (“[T]he under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach merely 
private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.”) (quotatio n marks and citations 
omitted).  The claims against these defendants must therefore be dismissed. 
 Second, all of the other defendants are identified  merely by job title / category or as a “John 
Doe” defendant.  See note 1, supra.  But filing a complaint ag ainst an unknown defendant does 
not initiate a claim against them or  toll the statute of limitations.  See Wiggins v. Kimberly-Clark 
Corp., 641 F. App’x 545, 548–49 (6th Cir. 2016).  As one  Court has explained, “[i]t is pointless 
to include a list of anonymous defendants in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open 
the door to relation back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.”  Wudke 
v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997).  See also Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230, 240 (6th 
Cir. 1996).  The Court must ther efore dismiss the claims agains t the unnamed or  unspecified 
defendants without prejudice. 
 Third, the Court notes that the statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims arising in 
Kentucky is one year.  K y. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a); Bonner v. Perry, 564 F.3d 424, 431 (6th 
Cir. 2009).  Constitutional claims for events occu rring more than one year before the complaint 
was filed on December 30, 2025 – a period which encompasses nearly all of Cecil’s allegations – 
are therefore barred by th e statute of limitations.  Johnson v. Memphis Li ght Gas & Water Div. , 
777 F. 3d 838, 843 (6th Cir. 2015).  Finally, to the ex tent Cecil wishes to assert claims arising 
under Kentucky law, cf. [R. 5 at 12], the Court will dismiss th e claims without prejudice in light 
of the dismissal of all federal claims.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 
 Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 
Case: 5:25-cv-00471-KKC     Doc #: 11     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 3 of 4 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
4 
 
 1. The Section 1983 claims asserted in  the amended complaint, [R. 5], are 
DISMISSED.  Any state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. 
 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 
 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the docket. 
 Entered:  June 11, 2026. 
 
 
 
Case: 5:25-cv-00471-KKC     Doc #: 11     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 4 of 4 - Page ID#:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight