United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
MARCUS L. CARGLE, Plaintiff,
JAMES A. YATES, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
A, White United States District Judge
Marcus L. Cargle, a pro se state prisoner incarcerated at
Davis Correctional Facility (DCF) in Holdenville, Oklahoma,
has filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, seeking relief for alleged constitutional
violations at that facility (Dkt. 1). The defendants are DCF
Warden James A. Yates; FNU Brown Chief of Security; and three
case managers: FNU Barry, FNU Bransfield, and FNU Worsham.
alleges that on December 26, 2018, he and his cellmate
Everett Gillum were notified they were to be moved from the
Fox Bravo segregation unit for failing their urinalysis
testing. While on lock-down awaiting transport, they were
''accosted'' by another prisoner who told
them that upon their arrival in the segregation unit, they
would receive a package with delivery instructions.
Correctional Officer York delivered Plaintiff's and
Gillum's property the next day, York instructed them to
''look inside the mattress.'' Upon inspection
of the mattress, Plaintiff and Gillum discovered three cell
phones and 1/2 pound of marijuana in a package. Plaintiff
claims that on January 3, 2019, while being escorted to the
showers, he and Gillum were instructed to traffic the
contraband so it would reach its destination. Upon returning
to the cells, Correctional Officer Hobbs attempted to
retrieve the contraband from Gillum, who had hidden it under
his T-shirt. Hobbs dropped the package and forced Gillum to
the ground. Hobbs then took the package and
''paraded'' it as contraband.
further claims he and Gillum have received numerous threats
when general-population prisoners are brought to segregation.
Both are concerned for their safety at DCF, because when they
eventually are returned to the general population, they will
be exposed to the people who were expecting the
staff-assisted contraband delivery.
is requesting relief in the form of an injunction requiring
Plaintiff's and Gillum's transfer from DCF while
these issues are in litigation. He also requests $650.00 to
cover their litigation fees and medical expenses.
review of the complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff must file
an amended civil rights complaint on the Court's form, as
set forth below.
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of
cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify any
cognizable claims and dismiss any claims which are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C.
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. The Court applies the same
standard of review for dismissals under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) that is employed for Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Kay v.
Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007).
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, however, Adoes 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 Amere conclusions
characterizing pleaded facts.'' Bryson v. City of
Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990).
''While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations,
a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.'' Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (quotations and citations omitted). 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).
twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff
must file an amended complaint on the Court's form. The
amended complaint must set forth the full name of each person
he is suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is
responsible for providing sufficient information for service
of process. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489
(8th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis and pro se had responsibility to
provide correct names and proper addresses for service of
must provide a short and plain statement of when and how each
named defendant violated his constitutional rights and
showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief from each named
defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). He also shall
identify a specific constitutional basis for each claim.
See id. He is admonished that simply alleging that a
defendant is an employee or supervisor of a state agency is
inadequate to state a claim. Plaintiff must go further and
state how the named defendant's personal participation
violated his constitutional rights. Furthermore, the Court
will only consider claims Abased upon the violation of a
plaintiff's personal rights, and ...