United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BERNARD M.JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a pretrial detainee appearing pro se, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
federal constitutional rights. The matter has been referred
by United States District Judge Stephen P. Friot for initial
proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
(C). An initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No.
1] has been conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A and 1915(e)(2). For the following reasons, it is
recommended that the claims against the Moore Police
Department and the Cleveland County Detention Center be
dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
Named Defendants and Claims Presented
claims arise out of his arrest followed by his incarceration
in the Cleveland County Detention Center. Plaintiff names as
defendants the Moore Police Department, a police officer
identified only as “Officer Queen Moore PD, ” the
Cleveland County Detention Center (CCDC), and unidentified
“medical personnel and Detention Officer.”
claims are based on his contention that he did not receive
any medical treatment after his arrest by Defendant Queen.
Claim One of Plaintiff's Complaint is lodged against
Defendant Queen. Plaintiff supports his claim with the
On apoximently 3:30 AM Aug 15, 2017 Officer Queen from Moore
PD found The Plantiff David Jones Jr under a tree at
Nodingham Apartments with blood gushing out of his wrist and
the defendant through him in the cop car and took him to jail
with no medical treatment and that is legally not allowed.
Pl.'s Comp. [Doc. No. 1], 3.
Claim two is lodged against CCDC and its “medical &
On aproximently between 4:00 AM and 5:00AM Cleveland County
Detention Center Officers did not give proper medical
treatment to David Jones Jr when he was gushing blood from
his wrist from a suicide attempt on Aug. 15, 2017 and that is
against the Sixth amendment for adaqute medical care.
Id. at 4
Standard for Dismissal
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
dismissal of a complaint is proper where the action fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks
monetary relief from one who is immune from such relief.
Court's review of a complaint under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) mirrors that required by Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). The Court must accept the plaintiff's
allegations as true and construe them, and any reasonable
inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214,
1217 (10th Cir. 2007). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, his complaint must be construed liberally. Id.
at 1218. The Court “review[s] the complaint for
plausibility; that is, to determine whether the complaint
includes enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Young v. Davis, 554
F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009)(quotations and citation
omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
this standard, Plaintiff's action fails to state
plausible claims for relief against Defendants ...