United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Lennie Dartez Mathis, appearing pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (ECF No. 1). The Court dismissed the Complaint and Mr.
Mathis has now filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 19 &
21). United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin has
referred the Amended Complaint to the undersigned magistrate
judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). A review of the Amended Complaint
has been conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Based on that review, it is
recommended that the Court DISMISS the
Complaint in its entirety.
Court must review each complaint in which a prisoner seeks
redress against a governmental entity, officer, or employee
and each case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma
pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). The Court is required to dismiss the complaint or
any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b);
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court must accept Mr. Mathis' allegations as true and
construe them, and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from
them, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Kay
v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). Since
Mr. Mathis is proceeding pro se, his complaint must
be construed liberally. See id. at 1218. The Court
“review[s] the complaint for plausibility; that is, to
determine whether the complaint includes enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009)
(quotations and citation omitted). “Plausible” in
this context does not mean “likely to be true, ”
but rather refers “to the scope of the allegations in a
complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide
swath of conduct, ” then the plaintiff has not
“nudged (his) claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility requirement
“serves not only to weed out claims that do not (in the
absence of additional allegations) have a reasonable prospect
of success, but also to inform the defendants of the actual
grounds of the claim against them.” Robbins v.
Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1248 (10th Cir. 2008).
complaint fails to state such a claim when it lacks factual
allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (footnote and
citation omitted). Bare legal conclusions in a complaint are
not assumed to be true; legal conclusions “must be
supported by factual allegations” to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to
recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must
provide such facts if the court is to determine whether he
makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.”
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991). “[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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. As a
result, courts “look to the specific allegations in the
complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal
claim for relief.” Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
a complaint contains sufficient facts to avoid dismissal is
context-specific and is determined through a court's
application of “judicial experience and common
sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also
Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1184-85 (10th Cir. 2010)
PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS/NAMED DEFENDANTS
basis of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint concerns his
incarceration at Cimarron Correctional Facility (CCF). (ECF
No. 21:7). As Defendants, Plaintiff has named: (1) Damon
Piminger, CEO of Core Civic of America (CCA), the company
which operates CCFand (2) CCA. (ECF No. 21:1, 4). Plaintiff
sues Defendant Piminger in both his official and individual
capacities. (ECF No. 21:4).
Mathis seeks liability against the Defendants because he had
been improperly classified as an “active” gang
member, which led to him being physically assaulted and
fearful for his safety. (ECF No. 21:7). Plaintiff argues
violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and seeks
monetary relief. (ECF No. 21:6, 7).