United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action commenced on
August 24, 2017, by Plaintiff Martin Lee Jamison, a state
prisoner appearing pro se. Plaintiff filed a complaint (Dkt.
# 1), along with motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #
2), for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 3), and for class
action certification (Dkt. # 4). By Order filed September 7,
2017 (Dkt. # 5), the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to pay an initial
partial filing fee. The Court also denied Plaintiff's
motions for appointment of counsel and for class action
certification. Id. On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff
paid the initial partial filing fee as directed by the Court.
See Dkt. # 7. For the reasons discussed below, the
complaint shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any
cognizable claim and dismiss any claim which is frivolous,
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 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To avoid dismissal
for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a
complaint must present factual allegations, assumed to be
true, that “raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must
contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. A court
must accept all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint
as true, even if doubtful in fact, and must construe the
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Id. at 555. However, “when the allegations in
a complaint, however true, could not raise a [plausible]
claim of entitlement to relief, ” the cause of action
should be dismissed. Id. at 558. Twombly
articulated the pleading standard for all civil actions.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009). The
Court applies the same standard of review for dismissals
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) that is employed for
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state
a claim. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10th
se plaintiff's complaint must be broadly construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); see
also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The
generous construction to be given the pro se litigant's
allegations “does not relieve the plaintiff of the
burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized
legal claim could be based.” Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Notwithstanding a pro
se plaintiff's various mistakes or misunderstandings of
legal doctrines or procedural requirements, “if a court
can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on
which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so . . .
.” Id. A reviewing court need not accept
“mere conclusions characterizing pleaded facts.”
Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th
Cir. 1990); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” (quotations and citations
omitted)). The court “will not supply additional
factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint
or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's
behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170,
1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
Causes of action raised in the complaint
Court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
describes the nature of the case as follows: “[t]he
Tulsa County Public Defenders Office court appointed
counsel(s) fail to provide effective assistance of counsel to
the indigent defendant and the State courts fail to provide
an adequate remedy to address this issue. Tulsa County
District Attorneys deny equal protection in violation of the
14th Amendment.” See Dkt. # 1 at 3. Plaintiff
identifies five (5) grounds for relief as follows:
Count I: Plaintiff was denied effective assistance of counsel
when counsel failure [sic] of consulation [sic] in violation
of the 6th and 14th Amendment.
Count II: Plaintiff was denied effective assistance of
counsel when counsel failed to mitigate in violation of 6th
and 14th Amendment.
Count III: Plaintiff was denied effective assistance of
counsel when counsel render [sic] concession of guilt in
violation of the 6th and 14th Amendment.
Count IV: Indigent was denied the right to effective
assistance of counsel when appointed [counsel] caused
rendered the indigent concession of guilt.
Count V: The Tulsa District Attorney's Office denies
indigents constitutional rights through selective prosecution