Shaver v. McIntosh County Board of Commissioners

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM ARTHUR SHAVER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. CIV 24-371-RAW-SPS

)

McINTOSH COUNTY BOARD, )

OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983, seeking monetary relief. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is incarcerated at the

McIntosh County Jail in Eufaula, Oklahoma. The defendants are the McIntosh County Board of

Commissioners; Monica Smith, Jail Administrator; and the State of Oklahoma (DA Office). 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.

Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges in Claim One of the complaint that from July 24, 2024, through August 14,

2024, he was locked in solitary confinement for “an incodent [sic] of unknown origins.” During his

20-day confinement, he allegedly was allowed out of his cell for only two hours and 15 minutes. He

claims Defendant Monica Smith is the policymaker at the jail, and she had total disregard for his

civil and constitutional rights. (Dkt. 1 at 6).

In Claim Two of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges he has been “harmed in many different ways

by the administration’s denial of access to the law library.” He, however, does not name an

individual defendant for this claim. He contends he did not know he could insist on having

witnesses called on his behalf, having a adverse effect on his bench trial. He also did not understand

what a bench trial was. He, therefore, believes he was tricked into accepting a bench trial where he

received a life sentence. (Dkt. 1 at 7-8).

In Claim Three of the complaint, Plaintiff asserts he received and served a revocation to an

illegal suspended sentence. Both the judge and district attorney, however, allegedly were aware he

was ineligible for a suspended sentence because of his prior convictions. (Dkt. 1 at 9).

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.

2

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 . . . 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 State of Oklahoma (DA Office)

Plaintiff has named the “State of Oklahoma (DA Office)” as a defendant. The Eleventh

Amendment, however, prevents Plaintiff from suing the State of Oklahoma without its unequivocal

consent. See Guttman v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d 1101, 1110 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Although a state may

waive the sovereign immunity granted to it under the Eleventh Amendment, we require a showing

of unequivocal intent to do so.”). “Oklahoma has not waived sovereign immunity against § 1983

claims in federal district court.” Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155, 1159 (10th Cir. 2006). See

also Okla. Stat. tit. 51 § 152.1. Therefore, the State of Oklahoma is dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B). See Wauford v. Richardson, 450 F. App’x

698, 699 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that claims dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment “should

[be] dismissed without prejudice.”).

To the extent Plaintiff has named the Office of the District Attorney of McIntosh County as

a defendant, Plaintiff’s claims also are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan

Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). The immunity to suit in federal courts afforded by the

Eleventh Amendment applies not only to the State, but also to its instrumentalities and officers

3

acting in their official capacities. Therefore, prosecutors possesses prosecutorial immunity from §

1983 lawsuits for damages which are predicated on their performance of functions “in initiating a

prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). See

also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272 (1993). For these reasons, the McIntosh County

District Attorney’s Office is dismissed without prejudice.

Claims Regarding Criminal Proceedings

Plaintiff’s claims concerning his criminal proceedings, including his bench trial and

revocation, are not appropriate for this civil rights action. To the extent Plaintiff seeks compensatory

damages for his alleged unconstitutional incarceration, he first must prove his “conviction or

sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state

tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance

of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

2254). When judgment for a plaintiff in a § 1983 suit “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence, . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that

the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims concerning

his criminal proceedings, including his bench trial and revocation, are dismissed from this action.

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

4

each named defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff also shall identify a specific constitutional

basis for each claim. See id. Plaintiff must state specific dates and specific acts by each defendant.

He is admonished that simply alleging that a defendant is an employee or supervisor of a state agency

or that the “administration” violated his civil rights is inadequate to state a claim. Plaintiff must go

further and state how the named defendant’s personal participation violated his constitutional rights.

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). Plaintiff’s

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 also 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,

1. The State of Oklahoma is dismissed without prejudice.

2. The McIntosh County District Attorney’s Office is dismissed without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s claims concerning his criminal proceedings, including his bench trial and

revocation, are dismissed without prejudice.

4. Plaintiff is directed to file within twenty-one (21) days an amended complaint on the

Court’s form as directed in this Order.

5. The Court Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the form for filing an amended

civil rights complaint in this Court.

6. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without further

notice.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of October 2024.

________________________________________

RONALD A. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6