# Roberts v. Bryant

> District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · January 24, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385897

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 24, 2024
- **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/10385897

## 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

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JEREMY GLENN ROBERTS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CIV 23-430-RAW-DES
)
CHRIS BRYANT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff is a pro se state pretrial detainee who is incarcerated at the Carter County
Detention Center in Ardmore, 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 seven
defendants are Chris Bryant, Carter County Sheriff; Devra Atwood, Jail Administrator; Clay
Lintner, Jail Administrator; Dr. Rory Dunham, Orthopedic Surgeon; Turn Key Health Clinics,
LLC, Jail Health Provider; Nurse Emily LNU, EB LPN; and Jenny Saunders, Jail Administrator.
Plaintiff alleges his arm was broken, and he has been in pain without proper medical
treatment. He also complains he has to pay for his medical care, and he had to sign a financial
agreement at the hospital for his surgery. Defendant Dr. Dunham allegedly failed to remove
hardware after Plaintiff’s surgery, and Plaintiff did not learn of this or of his complications for two
months. Finally, Plaintiff allegedly was kept on 23-hour lockdown because of his injury, and he
was not allowed to attend church services or to have any religious materials. He is requesting
immediate medical attention, access to church and religious materials, and monetary damages.
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.
1

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
2

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, 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. 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 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).

3

The amended complaint must include a short and plain statement of when and how each
named defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and that 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).
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 . . . .” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249-
50 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). When Plaintiff instead uses the term “the jail” as the
entity that allegedly denied his rights, see Claim 2 of the Complaint, it is impossible to ascertain
which individuals were involved.
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

4

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, 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 _2_4_th_ day of January 2024.

______________________________________
D.EDWARD SNOW
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385897. Public record. Not legal advice.