United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL UMTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Phil Jaquez (Plaintiff), a state prisoner appearing pro se,
brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming
violations of his constitutional rights. Doc.
Plaintiff has sued Sheriff P.D. Taylor and David Prater, the
District Attorney for Oklahoma County, each in their
individual capacities. Id. at 4. The matter has been
referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial
proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Docs. 3, 21. Having reviewed the sufficiency of Plaintiffs
claims, the undersigned recommends Plaintiffs complaint be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
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. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In addition, because Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis, the court has an ongoing duty
to consider the sufficiency of his claims. See id.
§ 1915(e)(2); Docs. 21, 22. 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. See
Id. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 Ml. 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 Plaintiffs advocate, creating arguments on his
behalf. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d
925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiffs claims and request for relief.
alleges that in April of 2017, while Plaintiff was
incarcerated at Oklahoma County Jail, he was
"beaten" by "guards for Oklahoma County."
Doc. 1, at 6-7, 11. According to Plaintiff, he was informed
by his cell mate that he needed to "leave the
cell." Id. at 6. Then, when a "guard came
by for pill call, [Plaintiff] informed him [he] needed to be
moved," and "[t]he guard said ok."
Id. Shortly after, the guard "tried to push
[Plaintiff] in side the cell. [Plaintiff] managed to get a
hold of the railing and [the guard] tryed to pull on
[Plaintiff]." Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff alleges the
guard then began to hit him in the ribs "10 to 15
Times." Id. at 7. Plaintiff claims "[t]his
was hurting so badly at the time, and in intence pain I just
didn't know what to do. So i reach around and grabed [the
guard] . . . ." Id. Plaintiff states he told
the guard that he would let go if the guard stopped hitting
him, and the guard agreed. Id.
alleges he "was taken to medical and [nothing] was done.
No. exrays . . . Thay just put me back in my cell and I was
releiced on Monday the next day. I had went to an doctor
complaning of my pain in my side. I had 2 Broke
states he "never did anything to provoke this
matter," but that "after 2 to 3 weeks [he] was
called in buy Oklahoma City Police," and was charged
with assault on an officer. Id., at 8. Plaintiff
alleges that he has been refused "full disclosure under
the Open Records Act," and that the "Court is
suppress the evidence" of the alleged beating.
Id. at 11. Plaintiff claims the "Dristrict
Attorney and counsel and Judge refuses to disclose the
exculpatory evidence of the veiedo survelance camara, and my
two sworn statements from witness that seaw it all."
Id. at 8. Plaintiff states he tried to compel
disclosure of this evidence through the Court of Criminal
Appeals. Id. Plaintiff seeks to "see
[video] of the alleged abuse," and wants to
"[r]etain [his] liberty of tort claims for the
states he is "trying to regaine my liberty due to this
unconditional confinement." Id. at 9. He lists
the "5, 6, 14, 8" amendments to the Constitution.
Id. Plaintiff seeks to "compel full disclosurse
as required by law or grant me liberty as required by the
United States Constitution. And give me my liberty from this
unconstitutional confinement. It is so prayed. 6, 14, 5, 8
amendment constitution (Immediate relice)." Id.
Plaintiffs vague allegations liberally, Plaintiff appears to
raise several claims: (1) that a prison guard used excessive
force against Plaintiff; (2) that Plaintiff did not receive
adequate medical care following his injury; and (3) that
video evidence of the alleged incident was not disclosed at
Plaintiffs trial. Although Plaintiff states "the amount
exceedes 10, 000.00 Dollars in tort Claims,"
id. at 2, even liberally construed, the only relief
Plaintiff appears to seek is "full disclosurse" of
the video evidence and "[i]mmediate relice" from
confinement. Id. at 10.