Opinion
CIV-22-1038-HE
02-14-2023
MICHAEL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CLEVELAND COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATORS, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHON T. ERWIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Michael Jackson, a convicted state prisoner, appearing pro se, and in forma pauperis, has filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). United States District Judge Joe Heaton has referred this matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). A review of the Complaint has been conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Based on that review, it is recommended that the Court DISMISS the Complaint in its entirety.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court must review each complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress against a governmental entity, officer, or employee and each case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is required to dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007) (indicating that court uses same analysis for complaint's sufficiency whether performed sua sponte or pursuant to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must accept Mr. Jackson's allegations as true and construe them, and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). Since Mr. Jackson is proceeding pro se, his Complaint must be construed liberally. See id. at 1218. The Court “review[s] the complaint for plausibility; that is, to determine whether the complaint includes enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations and citation omitted). “Plausible” in this context does not mean “likely to be true,” but rather refers “to the scope of the allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct,” then the plaintiff has not “nudged (his) claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility requirement “serves not only to weed out claims that do not (in the absence of additional allegations) have a reasonable prospect of success, but also to inform the defendants of the actual grounds of the claim against them.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1248 (10th Cir. 2008).
Whether a complaint contains sufficient facts to avoid dismissal is context-specific and is determined through a court's application of “judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
III. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT/ALLEGATIONS
Mr. Jackson alleges a violation of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at the Cleveland County Detention Center (CCDC). (ECF No. 1). According to Plaintiff, officials at the CCDC have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and he is not being housed in a handicapped accessible cell although he uses a walker. (ECF No. 1). As Defendants, Mr. Jackson names: (1) Cleveland County Detention Center Administrators; (2) TurnKey Health Administrators; and (3) Dr. Becky Pata. (ECF No. 1:4-5). Mr. Jackson sues these Defendants in their individual and official capacities, and requests monetary and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1:8).
IV. DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff clearly believes that his constitutional rights have been violated through a denial of medical care related to a broken leg and not being housed in a handicapped cell. See ECF No. 1. Although Plaintiff names “Administrators” at the CCDC and TurnKey, he has failed to name any particular “administrator” or provide any specific details in support of how he believes any administrator or Dr. Pata had participated in the alleged deprivations. See ECF No. 1.
In a case such as this one where Mr. Jackson has brought claims against more than one defendant, “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.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d at 1250. Mr. Jackson has failed to do so and the Court “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on plaintiff's behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997). Mr. Jackson's failure to link any of the three Defendants with any of the alleged violations, renders the Complaint legally deficient. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining “that, to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed (the plaintiff); and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”).
Based on the forgoing, the Court should dismiss the Complaint without prejudice because it does not “make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom,” and, as such, does not provide any of the Defendants with “fair notice as to the basis of the claims against him[.]" Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d at 1250; see also Brooks v. Colo. Dept of Corr., 762 Fed.Appx. 551, 557-58 (10th Cir. 2019) (explaining that the standard set forth in Robbins, is "the standard by which [courts] review complaints asserting § 1983 claims against multiple defendants"); see also Mayfield v. Presbyterian Hosp. Admin., 772 Fed.Appx. 680, 686 (10th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal when complaint contained "undifferentiated allegations" that did not "provide fair notice" to defendants because plaintiff had not "attributed specific acts to them").
V. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The Court should DISMISS the Complaint, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff is hereby advised of his right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of the District Court by March 3, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
VI. STATUS OF THE REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral to the undersigned magistrate judge in the captioned matter.