United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
ALBERTA ROSE JOSEPHINE JONES, individually and as Parent and Legal Guardian For her Challenged Son, Ryan Garrett Jones, Plaintiffs,
PROPSTONE LLC, Defendants.
L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Alberta Rose Josephine Jones, appearing pro se,
filed this action individually and as legal guardian for her
son, Ryan Garrett Jones. On June 9, 2017, the Court entered
an Order (Doc. No. 6) requiring that counsel enter an
appearance on behalf of Ryan Garrett Jones, because Alberta
Rose Josephine Jones could not pursue claims on his behalf
pro se. The record reflects that no attorney has
entered an appearance on behalf of Ryan Garrett Jones.
Accordingly, the claims of Ryan Garrett Jones are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Court has also reviewed the Complaint as it relates to
Plaintiff Alberta Rose Josephine Jones, the Court finds that
it should be dismissed. In the Tenth Circuit:
sua sponte dismissal of a meritless complaint that
cannot be salvaged by amendment comports with due process and
does not infringe the right of access to the courts.
Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th
Cir.2001). A sua sponte dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) is not reversible error when: (1) it is
“patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail
on the facts alleged”; and (2) “allowing [the
plaintiff] an opportunity to amend his complaint would be
futile.” McKinney v. State of Okla. Dep't of
Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 365 n. 1 (10th Cir.1991).
Phillips v. Public Serv. Co. of New Mexico, 2003 WL
191461 (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 2003). Excluding the
allegations regarding Ryan Garrett Jones from consideration
reveals the Complaint is devoid of a factual basis for
Plaintiff's ADA claim, and furthermore, most of her
claims are alleged in a conclusory manner, or fail to
reference the Defendants identified in the caption of the
named twenty-three parties in the caption of the Complaint,
as well as Does 1 through 10. The Defendants include
Propstone LLC, which she alleges operates a facility known as
Oakwood Springs Hospital, the Governor, the Oklahoma Attorney
General, the District Attorney, various officials in Lincoln
County, Oklahoma County and Oklahoma City, and the Department
of Justice. Under the “Parties” section of the
Complaint Plaintiff identifies Propstone LLC by name and
alleges that “[a]ll other relevant named listed
defendants are “co-conspirators” who either
reside and/or do or have done business within the Western
District of Oklahoma. Doc. No. 1, ¶ 4. Plaintiff
thereafter alleges a variety of acts, including that she was
left alone with two men, officers of Oakwood Springs Hospital
and harassed by them with regard to her son, who she alleges
had been accepted as a patient at the facility. She contends
there are “numerous other allegations” to be
addressed in this case, including the theft of her cattle,
illegal use of firearms against her by Defendants Starling,
Dawson, and unknown persons, and that state officials refused
to prosecute these persons. She also attempts to allege a
conspiracy against her because she has opposed Oklahoma's
liberal use of firearms.
asserts this action arises under federal law, citing the
Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. She also identifies 28 U.S.C. § 1983, 1984,
1988, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as grounds for
this Court's jurisdiction. Doc. No. 1, ¶ 5. She
alleges, without elaboration, that she is a qualified
individual with a disability. Id. ¶ 6.
Count 1, which indicates it is a claim for disability
discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Plaintiff does not identify that she was subjected to
discrimination by any Defendant. Rather, she asserts that her
son, whose claims are now dismissed, was subjected to
discrimination by Defendant Propstone, which operates Oakwood
Springs Hosptial. Accordingly, Count 1 of the Complaint as
it pertains to Alberta Rose Josephine Jones is subject to
dismissal as frivolous.
Count II Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations of disability
discrimination and retaliation asserting that
“Defendant Propstone and all state, local and federal
players' actions were unlawful, intentional, willful, and
done in reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' rights as
protected by the American with Disabilities Act and the
United States Constitution.” Doc. No. 1, ¶ 33.
Nothing in the factual portion of Plaintiff's Complaint
supports her contention that Defendant Propstone or any of
the other named Defendants violated her rights under the ADA.
alleges in Count 3:
Defendants have a consistent pattern of retaliation against
said Plaintiffs ARJ Jones and RG Jones.
*** A conspiracy to harass exists under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, 1984, 1988 for an “extended” period of
time. The conspiracy exists because Plaintiff ARJ Jones has
publicly displayed her “dislike” of firearms
after being assaulted with a firearm in her own home which
caused her much distress. In addition, the State of Oklahoma
openly approved the use of ‘firearms' against
herself and her disabled son, Ryan Garrett Jones.
Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 35-36. To plead a conspiracy a
plaintiff must specifically plead facts tending to show
agreement and concerted action. Beedle v. Wilson,
422 F.3d 1059, 1073 (10th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff's Complaint falls short, containing merely
conclusions and insufficient allegations. Furthermore, to the
extent Plaintiff's Complaint could be construed as
stating any claim under state law, the Court lacks
jurisdiction over this action, because she has failed to
sufficiently allege a federal claim.
Court further finds that Plaintiff's claims could not be
salvaged by amendment. Although the Court construes a pro
se plaintiff's pleadings liberally, it “will
not supply additional facts, [or] construct a legal theory
for [a] plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been
pleaded.” Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197
(10th Cir.1989). Here Plaintiff simply presents a myriad of
events she perceives as unfair allegedly tied together by her
disability and/or her opposition to the use of
firearms. Even ...