Opinion
Case No. CIV-18-50-R
01-26-2018
JASON E. MAXWELL Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jason E. Maxwell (Plaintiff), appearing pro se, initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 through a single-page complaint alleging "constitutional/civil rights violations" by "Defendants" in "Muskogee, OK." Doc. 1. United States District Judge David L. Russell has referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 3.
Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation. The undersigned alters Plaintiff's underlining and his use of the upper case but otherwise attempts to quote him verbatim.
I. Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants, acting under color of law, did willfully, maliciously, unjustly violate Plaintiff's 6th constitutional rights. That on the 1st day of Feb 2016 . . . Plaintiff was incarcerated in
the Muskogee, OK. To this 12th day of January 2018 . . . Plaintiff has yet to be tried/or convicted.Doc. 1. As relief, Plaintiff "ask[s] this honorable court to hear said writ to witt: U.S.C. 42 § 1983 constitutional/civil rights violations" and "prays that this honorable court grant said action." Id.
In the caption of his complaint, Plaintiff identifies this Court, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, as the "United States District Court for the State of Oklahoma." Doc. 1. In the complaint's title, he names the State of Oklahoma as one of the "Defendants" and lists "Case # CF-2016-00100" as the file number. Id.
II. Screening.
Federal law requires the court to screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss any frivolous or malicious claim, any claim asking for monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, or any claim on which the court cannot grant relief. Id. § 1915A(b).
Generally, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); see also Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1184 (10th Cir. 2010). "[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
"A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The court, however, may not serve as Plaintiff's advocate, creating arguments on his behalf. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
Consistent with this screening mandate, the undersigned has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and, for the following reasons, recommends summary dismissal.
III. Analysis.
Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in seeking relief from this Court. Doc. 1. "To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Likewise, "a complaint must explain what each defendant did to [Plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed [Plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right [Plaintiff] believes the defendant violated." Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff, however, alleges only that "the Defendants" have "violate[d]" his "6th constitutional rights" because he has been "incarcerated in . . . Muskogee, O[klahoma]" from February 1, 2016 until January 12, 2018, the date he signed his complaint, and he "has yet to be tried/or convicted." Doc. 1. He simply concludes that multiple Defendants have violated his Sixth Amendment rights without describing, as he must, what any particular Defendant—including the only Defendant he identifies, the "State of Oklahoma"—did to him and how that Defendant's actions harmed him. Id. And, although he expressly asks for relief under § 1983, he fails to specify the nature of the relief he seeks. Id. In sum, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which civil rights relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be granted.
Notably, however, Plaintiff mailed his complaint from the Cherokee County Detention Center in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. See Doc. 1, Att. 1.
This necessarily precludes consideration of Plaintiff's questionable choice of venue in this judicial district.
The undersigned takes judicial notice of public records establishing that Plaintiff is in custody awaiting a February 26, 2018 jury trial in the District Court in and for Muskogee, Oklahoma, Case No. CF-2016-109. See http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=muskogee&numbe r=CF-2016-00109&cmid=489744. To the extent Plaintiff seeks dismissal of these charges, any such claim must be brought in a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Yellowbear v. Wyo. Atty. Gen., 525 F.3d 921, 924 (10th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that § 2241 "is a vehicle for challenging pretrial detention" by a state detainee). And, because Plaintiff's pleadings establish that he is detained in either Muskogee, Doc. 1, or Cherokee County, id. Att. 1, and because both counties are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Oklahoma, see 28 U.S.C. § 116(b), any application for habeas relief under § 2241 is properly brought in that District Court.
See Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204, 1214 n.6 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting court's "discretion to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in our court and certain other courts concerning matters bearing directly upon the disposition of the case at hand") (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff mis-identified CF-2016-100 as the relevant case number. See Doc. 1.
The undersigned takes no position on whether Plaintiff would succeed in such an action. --------
IV. Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons stated and under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), the undersigned recommends the dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which civil rights relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be granted.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before February 16, 2018, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Plaintiff that failure to file a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2018.
/s/_________
SUZANNE MITCHELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE