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.

Jaquez v. Taylor

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

March 14, 2019

RUDY PHIL JAQUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
P.D. TAYLOR, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SUZANNE MITCHELL UMTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Rudy 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. I.[1] 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.

         I. Screening requirement.

         Federal 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).

         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 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.

         "A 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).

         II. Plaintiffs claims and request for relief.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 ribs." Id.

         Plaintiff 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 abuse." Id.

         Plaintiff 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. at 10.

         Construing 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.

         III. Analysis.

         A. ...


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.