United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
DAVID B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDY SIPES, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES
H. PAYNE UNITES STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
is a pro se state prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections who is incarcerated at Davis
Correctional Facility in Holdenville, Oklahoma. He has filed
this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, seeking relief for alleged constitutional violations at
his facility (Dkt. 1). The defendants are Brandy Sipes,
Correctional Counselor; Lt. Collins; Sgt. Adams; Captain
Ridell; Sgt. Potier, STG Officer; and Mr. Strawbridge, Unit
Manager.
Plaintiff
alleges that on August 2, 2019, he asked Defendant Brandy
Sipes to move him to a handicap cell, because he was in a
wheelchair. When Sipes was instructed to grant
Plaintiff's request, she attempted to move him to a cell
with railings beside the toilet, but no other accommodations,
which Plaintiff contended was not a handicap cell. Sipes
called Defendant Lt. Collins who advised there were no
handicap cells on the pod. Because this was unacceptable to
Plaintiff, Collins called Correctional Officer Carlton to
move Plaintiff. Carlton took Plaintiff to the segregation
unit without having a medical examination in
“pre-seg.” Plaintiff next was placed in a series
of inappropriate, uncomfortable cells without his property.
As of August 7, 2019, he allegedly had not been released from
segregation housing.
After
review of the complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff must file
an amended civil rights complaint on the Court's form, as
set forth below.
Screening/Dismissal
Standards
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. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
The
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).
A pro
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, “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).
“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).
Amended
Complaint
Within
twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff
must file an amended complaint on this Court's form. The
amended complaint must set forth the full name of each person
he is suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Sutton v.
Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226,
1237 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that “a cause of action
under § 1983 requires a deprivation of a civil right by
a ‘person' acting under color of state law”).
Further, the names in the caption of the amended complaint
must be identical to those contained in the body of the
amended complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a). 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 process).
The
Court notes that the facts of the complaint do not include
specific allegations against Defendants Adams, Ridell,
Potier, or Strawbridge. Plaintiff 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. The “denial of a grievance, by
itself without any connection to the violation of
constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff, does not
establish personal participation under § 1983.”
Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir.
2009) (citations omitted). The Court only will consider
claims “based upon the violation of a plaintiff's
personal rights, and not the rights of someone else.”
Archuleta v. McShan, 897 F.2d 495, 497 (10th Cir.
1990).
The
Court further notes that Plaintiff has requested relief in
the form of monetary damages and the termination of the
defendants from their respective jobs. Plaintiff is advised
that job termination is not available as a remedy in a civil
rights action under § 1983. Therefore, this request for
relief may not be included in the amended complaint.
The
amended complaint must include all claims and supporting
material to be considered by the Court. See Local
Civil Rule 9.2(c). It must be complete in itself, including
exhibits, and may not reference or attempt to incorporate
material from the original complaint or exhibits.
Id. An amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint and renders the original complaint of no legal
effect. See Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565
(10th Cir. 1991); Gilles v. United States, 906 F.2d
1386, 1389 (10th Cir. 1990). See also Local Civil
Rule 9.2(c). Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a), the amended
complaint must be clearly legible, and only one side of the
paper may be used.
The
Court Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the proper form for
filing an amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file an
amended complaint in accordance with this Order, this action
shall be dismissed ...