dismissing a prisoner’s conclusory conspiracy claim because he failed to plead specific facts suggesting a mutual understanding or meeting of the minds
How later courts described this case
- dismissing a prisoner’s conclusory conspiracy claim because he failed to plead specific facts suggesting a mutual understanding or meeting of the minds
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
SHAWNDALE WARREN PLAINTIFF
ADC #166650
v. No: 3:20-cv-00380 DPM-PSH
NATHAN WEST, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Shawndale Warren, an inmate at the Arkansas Division of
Correction’s North Central Unit, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on
November 25, 2020 (Doc. No. 1). Warren was subsequently granted in forma
pauperis status. See Doc. No. 5. Before docketing the complaint, or as soon
thereafter as practicable, the Court must review it to identify cognizable claims or
dismiss it if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court has reviewed Warren’s
complaint and does not order service of process at this time. Instead, the Court
directs Warren to file an amended complaint within thirty days to clarify his claims.
Warren alleges that he broke his jaw on May 8, 2020, and did not receive
appropriate medical treatment afterwards, including surgery and follow-up
examinations. Doc. No. 1 at 9-13. However, Warren does not specifically describe
each defendant’s involvement in the violations he alleges. For instance, he names
grievance coordinator Justin Peters and Nurse Jane Doe as defendants, but does not
clearly describe how they were involved in the violation of his rights. See Doc. No.
1 at 9-15. In his amended complaint, Warren should cure these deficiencies.
Additionally, in his amended complaint, Warren should describe facts he
relies on to support his allegation that defendants Marjorie Hall, Dr. Robert
Anderson, Dr. Jane Landrigan, Nurse Lung, and Nurse West engaged in a conspiracy
to deny him appropriate medical treatment.1 Warren’s original complaint does not
allege that nurses Lung or West were involved in his medical treatment other than
to diagnose him with a broken jaw. See id. at 10. Warren should also describe
specific facts to support his claim that white inmates are afforded better treatment
that he is because he is Black.
Warren appears to allege access-to-courts claims in his original complaint. He
should note that participation in the administrative grievance procedure alone is
insufficient to establish liability under § 1983. See Rowe v. Norris, 198 F. App’x
1 To state a conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to suggest a
“mutual understanding” between the defendants or a “meeting of the minds.” Cooper v.
Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th Cir. 1993) (dismissing a prisoner’s conclusory conspiracy
claim because he failed to plead specific facts suggesting a mutual understanding or
meeting of the minds); Manis v. Sterling, 862 F.2d 679, 681 (8th Cir. 1988) (same); White
v. Walsh, 649 F.2d 560, 561 (8th Cir. 1981) (same). “The factual basis need not be
extensive, but it must be enough to avoid a finding that the suit is frivolous.” Smith v.
Bacon, 699 F.2d 434, 436–37 (8th Cir. 1983) (citing McClain v. Kitchen, 659 F.2d 870,
872 (8th Cir. 1981)).
579, 580 (8th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, to state an access-to-courts claim, a prisoner
must show that he was “‘not provided an opportunity to litigate a claim challenging
the prisoner’s sentence or conditions of confinement in a court of law, .. □□□
Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting White v. Kautzky,
494 F.3d 677, 680 (8th Cir. 2007)). The prisoner must also show that an actual injury
resulted, “that is, the hindrance of a nonfrivolous and arguably meritorious
underlying legal claim.” Jd. If Warren wishes to claim denial of access to the
court(s), unrelated to a claim about the grievance procedure, he should do so in the
amended complaint, keeping in mind the requirements contained in the above-
quoted case.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a blank § 1983 complaint form to
Warren. Warren is cautioned that an amended complaint renders his original
complaint without legal effect; only claims properly set out in the amended
complaint will be allowed to proceed. In the event he fails to file an amended
complaint conforming to this order by that date, the Court will screen Warren’s
original complaint which may result in the dismissal of some of his claims for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4" day of January, 2021.
aot