United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
H. Payne, United States District Judge Eastern District of
is a pro se state prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections (DOC) who is incarcerated at Jess
Dunn Correctional Center (JDCC) in Taft, 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 the
DOC Director; J. Kevin Stitt, the Governor of Oklahoma; and
Cheri Atkinson, DOC Medical Services Manager.
alleges his facility is overcrowded and understaffed,
resulting in inhumane and unsafe conditions. Id. at
4, 18-21. He further claims there are inadequate medical and
food services. Id. at 20-22. Plaintiff asserts the
events giving rise to his claims occurred around 11 a.m. on
August 21, 2015, when he was taken to the Lexington A&R
facility. Id. at 5. The facts underlying his claim
are as follow:
When I got to Jess Dunn correctional Center and the warden
started to make this minimum to a medimun and keep us lock
down true count 2-3 hr a day then I started to get meatal and
emotional distress this happen in 2016.
Id. (errors in original). Plaintiff also has
submitted copies of grievance documents dated April - June
2019. Id. at 12-17.
review of the complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff must file
an amended civil rights complaint on the Court's form, as
set forth below.
stated above, Plaintiff contends the unconstitutional
conditions of his confinement began in 2015. The statute of
limitations for a civil rights cause of action in Oklahoma,
however, is two years. Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d
1512, 1522 (10th Cir. 1988). Therefore, the Court cannot
consider any claims of constitutional violations occurring
more than two years before the filing of the complaint on
September 9, 2019.
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, “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).
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.