Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Young v. Rios

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

November 14, 2017

GEORGE SOLER YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
HECTOR A. RIOS, Warden, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charles C. Goodwin's Report and Recommendation screening Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. See Doc. 116. Plaintiff brings various civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against thirty-six Defendants affiliated with Lawton Correctional Facility, GEO Group, Inc., Oklahoma Department of Corrections, and Oklahoma State Penitentiary. See Amended Complaint, Doc. 102. Plaintiff alleges he was assaulted by various correctional officers, threatened and retaliated against for reporting it, and deprived of necessary medical care and protection. Judge Goodwin recommended partial dismissal of Plaintiff's claims, and Plaintiff has objected only to these sections of the Report. See Doc. 119. Plaintiff also filed four motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 94, 107, 108, 114) that the Court has considered. The Court reviews Plaintiff's objections to the Report de novo and adopts the Report in part. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief are DISMISSED, and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in part. The Court dismisses all but the following claims:

1. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Hill, Time, Rauch, Wiltshire, Roody, Jones, and Tweedy for assault and failure to intervene
2. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Hill, Time, Rauch, Wiltshire, Roody, Jones, and Tweedy for failure to provide necessary medical care directly following the assault
3. First Amendment claim against Defendant Rios for transferring Plaintiff from LCF protective custody to retaliate for reporting the assault
4. First Amendment claim against Defendant Benoit for making retaliatory threats that Plaintiff would never leave segregation if he reported the assault

         I. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff's Amended Complaint names thirty-six Defendants: Hector A. Rios, Lawton Correctional Facility (“LCF”) Warden; GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”); Reed Smith, GEO Vice-President; Rick Whitten, LCF Deputy Warden; LCF staff members Time, Hill, Roody, Rauch, Wiltshire, Ford, Tweedy, Jones, Benoit, Gibson, Sessums, McCracken, Zold, Deason, Plume, Waite, Cation, Cornelius, Johns, Calhoun, Ellington, and Alston; Robert Patton, former Oklahoma Department of Corrections (“ODOC”) Director; Joe M. Allbaugh, ODOC Director; ODOC staff members Greg Williams, Lesia Miser, and Natalie Cooper; Anita Trammell, former Oklahoma State Penitentiary (“OSP”) Warden; Terry Royal, OSP Warden; and OSP staff members Gene Winningham, [1] Eric Thomas, and Jerry Perry.[2] See Doc. 102, at 1-6. Plaintiff names all Defendants in their individual capacity, and the following in their official capacity as well: Rios, GEO, Smith, Patton, Allbaugh, Williams, Miser, Cooper, and Royal.

         Liberally and reasonably construed, Plaintiff brings the following claims for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

1. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Hill, Time, Rauch, Wiltshire, Roody, Jones, and Tweedy for assault and failure to intervene
2. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Rios for failure to train and supervise employees to prevent the assault
3. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Hill, Time, Rauch, Wiltshire, Roody, Jones, and Tweedy for failure to provide Plaintiff necessary medical care directly following his assault
4. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for failure to provide Plaintiff necessary medical care until two days after the assault
5. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Deason, Patton, Allbaugh, Rios, and GEO for withholding necessary dental care.
6. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants McCracken and Zold for withholding necessary psychiatric care.
7. Conspiracy claim against Defendants Rios, Patton, White, Plume, Whitten, Williams and Miser for agreeing to transfer Plaintiff from LCF protective custody in retaliation for reporting the assault
8. First Amendment claim against Defendants Rios, Patton, White, Plume, Whitten, Williams and Miser for transferring Plaintiff from LCF protective custody to retaliate for reporting the assault
9. First Amendment claim against Defendant Benoit for making retaliatory threats that Plaintiff would never leave segregation if he reported the assault
10. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Rios, Patton, White, Plume, Whitten, Williams, and Miser for failing to protect Plaintiff from serious harm

         II. Discussion

         In screening Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in forma pauperis (see Doc. 4), the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii), 1915A(a)-(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)-(2); Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007). Further, while the Court construes a pro se litigant's pleadings liberally, Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218, it “should not assume the role of advocate, and should dismiss claims which are supported only by vague and conclusory allegations.” Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1520- 21 (10th Cir. 1992).

         The standard of review for dismissals under § 1915(e) is the same as for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals for failure to state a claim. Kay, 500 F.3d. at 1217. In determining whether dismissal is proper, the Court “must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe those allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. (quoting Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002)). The complaint “must contain a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2)). “The pleading standard . . . does not require ‘detailed factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Such conclusory allegations are not entitled to the Court's presumption for Plaintiff. Instead, he must plead facts that at least make the claims plausible and raise the “right of relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558. Thus, from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Defendants must learn “what [they] did to [Plaintiff]; when [they] did it; how [their] action harmed [Plaintiff]; and what specific legal right [Plaintiff] believes [they] violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cty. Justice Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).

         Before reviewing Plaintiff's claims, the Court summarily dismisses the following Defendants named in the Amended Complaint because Plaintiff fails to plead specific allegations against them: Smith, Sessums, Gibson, Cation, Calhoun, Johns, Alston, Ellington, Trammel, Royal, [3] Ford, Cornelius, Winningham, Thomas, Perry, and Cooper. Further, the Court dismisses the following Defendants named in the original complaint because Plaintiff fails to name them in his Amended Complaint: LCF Officer DeAlmenau, Lt. Cantwell, and LCF Deputy Warden Caldwell.[4] Compare Doc. 1, at 13, with Doc. 102. Plaintiff failed to inform them “what [they] did to [Plaintiff]; when [they] did it; how [their] action harmed [Plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right [Plaintiff] believes [they] violated.” Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1163.

         A. Eleventh Amendment State ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.