# McCoy v. Sipes

> District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · January 3, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10386032

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 3, 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/10386032

## 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
JIMMIE McCOY, III, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CIV 23-404-RAW-DES
)
B. SIPES, et al., )
)
Defendant. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff is a pro se state prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections who is incarcerated at Allen Gamble Correctional Center 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 B. Sipes, Unit
Manager; Lt. J. Lysinger; Correctional Officer Musile, Shower Team; and Michael Miller,
Warden.
I. Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff alleges he has been denied his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In Claim 1, he claims that on October 16, 2023,
unspecified “staff” placed him in harm’s way by “celling re-up with inmates” and restricting
him from his privileges and rights in an unspecified manner. He cites to his history of
Requests to Staff (RTSs), however, the complaint form itself does not include this referenced
information to explain the specifics of the claim. (Dkt. 1 at 5). The Court will not search the
record and attempt to discover the information that should be in the complaint. See Gross
v. Burggraf Constr. Co., 53 F.3d 1531, 1546 (10th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff alleges that Claim 2 also arose on October 16, 2023. He asserts he has
submitted RTSs and grievances “time and time again” regarding his medical history and how
unspecified “staff” attempt to cover up his injuries and lie about an alleged refusal of medical
services. He fails to set forth which particular staff members were involved, the specific type
of medical injuries, or how the unspecified employees have lied and attempted a cover-up.
Id.
Plaintiff claims in Claim 3 that on October 16, 2023, he was assaulted, and
unspecified “staff” wrote a false report saying he refused medical treatment. He maintains
he did not sign a refusal, and he was “patched up” by medical. He asserts that “[s]taff
slammed me after body restraint and moved to medical.” Id. at 6.
In Claim 4, he asserts the warden repeatedly has been informed of the abuse inflicted
by his staff, including harassment, starvation, and denial of religious rights. He states this
also occurred on October 16, 2023, but he does not name the individual staff members
involved.
Plaintiff asks for relief in the form of removal from his facility and stopping the
alleged abuse. Id. at 7. He also asks for the Court to see that the staff do not abuse their
power on any other inmate. 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.
II. 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.
2
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,
3
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).
III. 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
4
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 “staff”] 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.
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 3rd day of January 2024.

5

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10386032. Public record. Not legal advice.