Dye v. McIntosh County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JASON GRANT DYE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. CIV 23-035-RAW-JAR

)

McINTOSH COUNTY and )

KEVIN LEDBETTER, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff is a pro se pretrial detainee who is incarcerated at the McIntosh County Jail in

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

monetary relief for alleged constitutional violations at his facility. (Dkts. 1, 7). The defendants are

McIntosh County and Sheriff Kevin Ledbetter. Id. at 3.

Plaintiff alleges in Claim 1 of the complaint that he was punished by Monica Smith, the jail

administrator, for filing a grievance about access to the courts. In Claim 2, he complains that the

jail administrator charged him a $375.00 fee and a $8.70 fee for using a printer, in violation of the

Eighth Amendment. Id. at 5.1 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).

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).

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 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.” /d. 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 tn itself, including exhibits, and may not reference

or attempt to incorporate material from the original complaint or exhibits. /d. 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

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 April 2024.

besfile

Eastern District of Oklahoma