# Hooks v. Blocker

> District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · April 13, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385761

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 13, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385761

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that § 1915A dismissals are reviewed under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard for stating a claim for relief
- holding that “a cause of action under § 1983 requires a deprivation of a civil right by a ‘person’ acting under color of state law”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANTONIO DEWAYNE HOOKS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CIV 22-378-RAW-JAR
)
FNU BLOCKER No. 1, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff is a pro se state prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections (ODOC) who is incarcerated at Davis Correctional Facility in Holdenville,
Oklahoma. He 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 FNU Blocker
No. 1; FNU Blocker No. 2; Joe Norwood, Warden; Mr. Perez, Deputy Warden; Ms. Taylor,
EC Case Manager; Ms. Piecers, Day Shift Correctional Officer; Mrs. Brewers; Provider/DCF
Doctor; Jamie Lysinger, RN, Medical Administrator; Red Hair Nurse, Evening Shift; Mrs.
Martinez, Mail Room Supervisor; Mr. Martinez, E Unit Manager; Mark Gentry, Former
Warden; DCF Trust Fund Account Officer; DCF Mental Health Department; Core Civic,
Inc.; Trinity Kitchen, Kitchen Supervisor; Core Civic Maintenance; ODOC ARA; ODOC
Medical; Chief Brown; and Mrs. Underwood.
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). See also Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013)
(holding that § 1915A dismissals are reviewed under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard
for stating a claim for relief).
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
2
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 Opinion and 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) (pro se plaintiff had responsibility to provide
correct names and proper addresses for service of process). Because DCF Mental Health
Department, Core Civic Maintenance, ODOC ARA, and ODOC Medical are not “persons,”
they are DISMISSED from this action and may not be named as defendants in the amended
complaint.
3
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 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).
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. It may not include defendants or claims that are dismissed by this Order.
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.
ACCORDINGLY,
4
1. Defendants DCF Mental Health Department, Core Civic Maintenance, ODOC
ARA, and ODOC Medical are DISMISSED from this action.
2. Plaintiff is directed to file within twenty-one (21) days an amended complaint
on the Court’s form as directed in this Order.
3. The Court Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the form for filing an
amended civil rights complaint in this Court.
4. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without
further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April 2023.

5

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385761. Public record. Not legal advice.