Castleman v. Marler

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MARK CASTLEMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. CIV 22-235-RAW-JAR

)

JOHN MARLAR, D.O., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff is a pro se state prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of

Corrections (DOC) who is incarcerated at Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) in McAlester,

Oklahoma. He filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief

for alleged constitutional violations occurring at this facility. (Dkt. 1). The defendants are

the following OSP officials: John Marlar, D.O., Physician; Donna Arnold, R.N.; Regina Van

Blaricom, Correctional Health Services Administrator; FNU Christenson, Correctional

Officer; and FNU Lt. McManus. Id. at 3-4.

Plaintiff alleges that on September 29, 2020, he was made aware of the fact that the

named defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights in their delay of treatment for his

serious medical needs. Id. at 5. He requests monetary and injunctive relief. Id. at 7.

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

that 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 also 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 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,

2

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. Plaintiff also 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). 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’s original complaint makes a generalized statement about his medical

treatment, however, he does not state how each defendant violated his constitutional rights.

The amended complaint must include a short and plain statement of when and how each

named defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and showing Plaintiff is entitled

to relief from each named defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff 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

3

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 Tenth Circuit has explained that when a § 1983 plaintiff includes a “government

agency and a number of government actors sued in their individual capacities,” then “it is

particularly important . . . that the complaint make clear exactly who is alleged to have done

what to whom, to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claims against

him or her, as distinguished from collective allegations against the state.” Robbins v.

Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). When a plaintiff

instead uses “either the collective term ‘Defendants’ or a list of defendants named

individually but with no distinction as to what acts are attributable to whom, it is impossible

for any of these individuals to ascertain what particular unconstitutional acts they are alleged

to have committed.” Id. at 1250 (citation omitted).

An amended complaint completely replaces 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). 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. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a), the amended complaint must be clearly

legible, only one side of the paper may be used, and additional sheets of paper shall have

margins of no less than one (1) inch on the top, bottom, and sides. The Court Clerk is

directed to send Plaintiff a form for filing an amended complaint.

4

ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff is directed to file within twenty-one (21) days an

amended complaint on the Court’s form as directed in this Order. The Court Clerk is

directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the form for filing an amended civil rights complaint in

this Court. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without

further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of October 2022.

__________________________________

HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

5