United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
H. Payne United States District Judge Eastern District of
action is before the Court on Defendants' motions to
dismiss or for summary judgment. The Court has before it for
consideration Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1), the
parties' motions (Dkts. 47, 51) and a special report
prepared by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) at
the direction of the Court, in accordance with Martinez
v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (Dkt. 46).
a pro se, death-sentenced prisoner in the custody of DOC is
incarcerated at Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) in
McAlester, Oklahoma. He brings this action under the
authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking relief for alleged
constitutional violations at his facility. The defendants are
G.T.L. Phone Corporation (GTL), DOC, OSP, OSP Warden Terry
Royal, OSP H-Unit Manager Jerry Perry, and OSP Case Manager
pleading standard for all civil actions was articulated in
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009). To
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must present factual
allegations, assumed to be true, that “raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555. The complaint must contain “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 570. A court must accept all the
well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true, even if
doubtful in fact, and must construe the allegations in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at
555-56. “So, when the allegations in a complaint,
however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to
relief, ” the cause of action should be dismissed.
Id. at 558.
se plaintiff's complaint must be broadly construed under
this standard. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The generous construction to be given to the pro se
litigant's allegations “does not relieve the
plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which
a recognized legal claim could be based.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Notwithstanding a pro se plaintiff's various mistakes or
misunderstandings of legal doctrines or procedural
requirements, “if a court can reasonably read the
pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could
prevail, it should do so . . . .” Id. A
reviewing court need not accept “mere conclusions
characterizing pleaded facts.” Bryson v. City of
Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990); see
also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The Court “will not
supply additional factual allegations to round out a
plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a
plaintiff's behalf.” Whitney v.§ New
Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997). With
these standards in mind, the court turns to the merits of
defendants allege that on September 23, 2017, Plaintiff
received a misconduct for covering his cell window and
refusing multiple orders to remove the covering from the
window. (Dkt. 47-6 at 49). On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff
was summoned to Defendant Schleuter's office to
investigate the September 23, 2017, disciplinary violation.
Id. at 47-5 at 45). Plaintiff, however, refused to
be escorted to Schleuter's office, refused to be
restrained, and blocked his food passage. Id. As a
result, Plaintiff received another misconduct for tampering
with a locking device and failure to obey verbal orders.
(Dkt. 47-5 at 45; Dkt. 47-6 at 50).
sanction for the September 23, 2017, and September 25, 2017,
misconducts, Plaintiff's phone privileges were suspended
for 90 days. (Dkt. 47-6 at 46). When the phone system denied
his call, Plaintiff was instructed to submit an updated GTL
phone list to GTL, and he made a privileged call to his
attorney in the H-Unit programs room. Id.
G.T.L. Phone Corporation
alleges Defendant GTL has collaborated with prison officials
to deprive him of his “fundamental right to communicate
with his habeas corpus attorneys, the federal public defender
. . . in Oklahoma City.” He further claims:
The G.T.L. Phone Corporation has falsely represented
conditions surrounding Wade Lay's phone connections under
the pretense of technical difficulties. The G.T.L.
representative entangled the G.T.L. Corporation in the
prejudice and abuse of prison officials interfeering [sic] in
the Plaintiff's rights under the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), and the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(Dkt. 1 at 2).
support of his claim, Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1)(B)(ii): “An application for a writ of habeas
corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it
appears that circumstances exist that render such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.”
This lawsuit, however, does not concern ...