United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
JASON E. MAXWELL Plaintiff,
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
E. Maxwell (Plaintiff), appearing pro se, initiated this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 through a single-page
complaint alleging “constitutional/civil rights
violations” by “Defendants” in
“Muskogee, OK.” Doc. 1. United States District Judge
David L. Russell has referred this matter to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 3.
that the Defendants, acting under color of law, did
willfully, maliciously, unjustly violate Plaintiff's
6th constitutional rights. That on the
1st day of Feb 2016 . . . Plaintiff was
incarcerated in the Muskogee, OK. To this 12th day
of January 2018 . . . Plaintiff has yet to be tried/or
Doc. 1. As relief, Plaintiff “ask[s] this
honorable court to hear said writ to witt: U.S.C. 42 §
1983 constitutional/civil rights violations” and
“prays that this honorable court grant said
law requires the court to screen complaints filed by
prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss any frivolous or
malicious claim, any claim asking for monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief, or any claim on
which the court cannot grant relief. Id. §
a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); see also Gee
v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1184 (10th Cir. 2010).
“[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of
the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to
legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally
and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The court, however, may not
serve as Plaintiff's advocate, creating arguments on his
behalf. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1
(10th Cir. 2008).
with this screening mandate, the undersigned has reviewed
Plaintiff's complaint and, for the following reasons,
recommends summary dismissal.
invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in seeking relief from this
Court. Doc. 1. “To state a claim under § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show
that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting
under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Likewise, “a complaint must explain
what each defendant did to [Plaintiff]; when the defendant
did it; how the defendant's action harmed [Plaintiff];
and, what specific legal right [Plaintiff] believes the
defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
however, alleges only that “the Defendants” have
“violate[d]” his “6th
constitutional rights” because he has been
“incarcerated in . . . Muskogee, O[klahoma]” from
February 1, 2016 until January 12, 2018, the date he signed
his complaint,  and he “has yet to be tried/or
convicted.” Doc. 1. He simply concludes that multiple
Defendants have violated his Sixth Amendment rights without
describing, as he must, what any particular
Defendant-including the only Defendant he identifies, the
“State of Oklahoma”-did to him and how that
Defendant's actions harmed him.Id. And, although
he expressly asks for relief under ...