# Jones v. Turnkey Medical Services

> District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · January 31, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385905

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 31, 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/10385905

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “a cause of action under § 1983 requires a deprivation of a civil right by a ‘person’ acting under color of state law”
- 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
PAUL JONES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CIV 24-031-RAW-GLJ
)
SEQUOYAH COUNTY )
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, )
)
Defendant. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff is a pro se pretrial detainee who is incarcerated at the Sequoyah County Detention
Center in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. He filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
seeking relief for alleged constitutional violations at that facility (Dkt. 1). The defendant is the
Sequoyah County Sheriff’s Department.
Plaintiff alleges that from July 18, 2023, to December 22, 2023, he was denied medications
and proper medical care for his diabetes and high blood pressure. Id. at 5. 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 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).
Defendant Sequoyah County Sheriff’s Department
Plaintiff has named the Sequoyah County Sheriff’s Department as the sole defendant. He
has not named any individual persons who allegedly violated his constitutional rights. “Courts
2
routinely dismiss § 1983 claims that name and seek to impose liability directly upon municipal and
county police departments because police departments are not separate suable entities.” Harper v.
City of Cortez, No. 14-2984-KLM, 2015 WL 4720311, at *5 (D. Colo. Aug. 10, 2015) (citing cases)
(unpublished). See also Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444 (10th Cir. 1985), vacated on other
grounds by Tyus v. Martinez, 475 U.S. 1138 (1986) (“The ‘City of Denver Police Department’ is not
a separate suable entity”).
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. 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 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).
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
3
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 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. It may not include
the Sequoyah County Sheriff’s Department as a defendant, because it is not a suable entity. 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.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January 2024.

5

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385905. Public record. Not legal advice.