Opinion
CIV-23-833-R
12-13-2023
PATRICK LEE ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. GRADY COUNTY SHERIFF et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHON T. ERWIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Patrick Lee Adams, a convicted federal prisoner, appearing pro se, and in forma pauperis, has filed an Amended Complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 15). 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). A review of the Amended 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: (1) dismiss, with prejudice, the claim against the Grady County Sheriff's Office and (2) dismiss, without prejudice, the claims against the Grady County Jail Administrator, the Grady County Commissioners, and Turn Key Health.
Mr. Adams is a federal inmate but has asserted civil rights claims against county officials and the medical provider for the Grady County Jail. See ECF No. 15. As such, the Court should construe the action as one asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 instead of assuming jurisdiction pursuant to Bivens, which is reserved for actions against federal officials. See Bivens; see also Smith v. U.S., 561 F.3d 1090, 1099 (10th Cir. 2009).
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court must review each complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court likewise must review each case brought by a prisoner with respect to prison conditions and each case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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), 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must accept Mr. Adams' 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. Adams 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).
A complaint fails to state such a claim when it lacks factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (footnote and citation omitted). Bare legal conclusions in a complaint are not assumed to be true; legal conclusions “must be supported by factual allegations” to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
“[A] pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). “[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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. As a result, courts “look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1184-85 (10th Cir. 2010) (discussing Iqba). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to plausibly show that a person acting under color of state law has violated or is violating a federal right of the plaintiff. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210, 1225 (10th Cir. 2013). The specific factual allegations required depend upon whether the defendant is sued in his or her official or individual capacity, as well as the type of violation alleged.
III. PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT/NAMED DEFENDANTS
Mr. Adams' Amended Complaint concerns injuries he sustained while in a car wreck on December 8, 2022, after leaving the federal courthouse. (ECF No. 15). According to Mr. Adams, at some point after the accident, he asked the “transporting officers for medical attention and was told that we well [sic] receive medical attention when we get back to Grady County Jail.” (ECF No. 15:5). Even so, Mr. Adams claims that no treatment was forthcoming, and he is still suffering “severe pain in [his[] back, shoulder, wrist, and legs.” (ECF No. 15:5). In a supplement to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also states: (1) he was “turned down for glasses 2 times,” which caused him to suffer from headaches and an inability to see and (2) the food at the Grady County Jail is causing him constipation. (ECF No. 15-1:1).
As Defendants, Mr. Adams names: (1) the Grady County Commissioners; (2) the Grady County Jail Administrator; (3) the Grady County Sheriff's Office; and (4) Turn Key Health Clinic. (ECF No. 15:4-5). Plaintiff seeks liability against these Defendants in their official and individual capacities and seeks monetary damages. (ECF No. 15:5-6).
IV. THE GRADY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
As stated, Mr. Adams has named the Grady County Sheriff's Office as a Defendant. See supra. However, the Court should dismiss any claims against this Defendant, because is not an entity legally capable of being sued.
Section 1983 creates a private right of action for redressing the violation of federal law by those acting under color of state law. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. ofEduc., 465 U.S. 75, 82 (1984). It “provides that ‘every person' who acts under color of state law to deprive another of constitutional rights ‘shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.'” Lawrence v.Reed, 406 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (alterations omitted).
Whether an entity is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 is a matter of statutory interpretation. See Lippoldt v. Cole, 468 F.3d 1204, 1212 (10th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has sued the Grady County Jail. See supra. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that a county detention facility “is not a person or legally created entity capable of being sued.” Aston v. Cunningham, 2000 WL 796086 at *4 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Ketchum v. Albuquerque Police Dep't, 1992 WL 51481, at *2 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that a municipal police department is not a suable entity because it lacks a legal identity apart from the municipality); see also Lindsey v. Thomson, 275 F. App'x. 744, 747 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished op.) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 claims against police departments and county sheriff's department, entities with no apparent legal existence).
Accordingly, the Court should dismiss, with prejudice, Plaintiff's claim against the Grady County Sheriff's Office for failure to state a claim.
V. THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS
With the foregoing recommendation, what remains are Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Grady County Board of County Commissioners, the Grady County Jail Administrator, and Turn Key Health Clinic. The Court should dismiss the claims against these Defendants.
A. Claims Against Defendants Grady County Commissioners, Turn Key Health, and Official Capacity Claim against the Grady County Jail Administrator
Under Oklahoma law, a county's board of county commissioners is not a separate legal entity from the county. Rather, in general, it exercises the powers of the County. 19 Okla. Stat. § 3. As such, a suit brought against a county's board of county commissioners is the way Oklahoma law contemplates suing the county. 19 Okla. Stat. § 4. Moreover, in the § 1983 context, a suit against the Board of County Commissioners or some other county official in their official capacity is, in substance, a suit against the county. Porro v. Barnes, 624 F.3d 1322, 1328 (10th Cir. 2008). Here, the relevant entity is Grady County, thereby implicating municipal liability. A municipality or a county can only be held liable for constitutional violations committed pursuant to official policy or custom. Monel v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) C“[I]t is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”); Cox v. Glanz, 800 F.3d 1231, 1254 (10th Cir. 2015) (applying Monel to a county). In addition, an entity working on a county's behalf to perform a county function, such as Defendant Turn Key Health, can be liable for the same types of Monel violations. See Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1216 (10th Cir. 2003) ('“Although the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 1983 in Monel applied to municipal governments and not to private entities acting under color of state law, caselaw from this and other circuits has extended the Monel doctrine to private § 1983 defendants.”); Smedley v. Corr. Corp, of Am., 175 Fed.Appx. 943, 945-46 (10th Cir. 2005).
Therefore, to state a § 1983 claim against Defendant Board of County Commissioners, Turn Key Health, and the Grady County Jail Administrator in his/her official capacity, a plaintiff must identify" 'a government's policy or custom' that caused [him] injury.” See Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dept, 717 F.3d 760, 769 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Monel, 436 U.S. at 691-92). "A challenged practice may be deemed an official policy or custom for § 1983 municipal-liability purposes if it is a formally promulgated policy, a well-settled custom or practice, a final decision by a municipal policymaker, or deliberately indifferent training or supervision.” Id. at 770. As well, a plaintiff must establish "a direct causal link between the policy or custom and the injury alleged,” Graves v. Thomas, 450 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006), and must also show "that the policy was enacted or maintained with deliberate indifference to an almost inevitable constitutional injury,” Schneider, 717 F.3d at 769.
Here, Mr. Adams has failed to sufficiently allege a “formal policy or custom” that directly caused his alleged injuries. See ECF No. 15. As a result, the Court should dismiss any claim against Defendant Board of County Commissioners, Turn Key Health, and the Grady County Jail Administrator in his/her official capacity.
B. Individual Capacity Claim against the Grady County Jail Administrator
With the previous recommendation, what remains is Mr. Adams' individual capacity claim against the Grady County Jail Administrator for violating Plaintiff's Eight Amendment rights. The Court should dismiss this claim.
When a defendant is sued in his or her individual capacity under § 1983, the plaintiff must establish specific elements as to each defendant. First, the plaintiff must establish the defendant's “personal involvement or participation” in the alleged violation of a federal right. Grimsley v. MacKay, 93 F.3d 676, 679 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). Second, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the acts of that particular defendant and the alleged violation of a federal right. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; Pahls, 718 F.3d at 1225-28. Finally, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted with the state of mind required for the alleged underlying federal rights violation. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330 (1986).
Here, Mr. Adams has failed to allege that the Grady County Jail Administrator had personally participated in any specific way to violate Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. Mr. Adams alleges that he never received treatment following the car wreck, and that he suffers from headaches and constipation, but nowhere in the Amended Complaint does he attribute these failures to the Grady County Jail Administrator. See ECF No. 15. As a result, the Court should dismiss the individual capacity claim against this Defendant.
VI. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The Court should: (1) dismiss, with prejudice, the claim against the Grady County Sheriff's Office and (2) dismiss, without prejudice, the claims against the Grady County Jail Administrator, the Grady County Commissioners, and Turn Key Health. In addition, adoption of this recommendation would moot Plaintiff's request for counsel included in the Letter attached to his Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 15-1:2.
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 January 2, 2024. 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).
VII. STATUS OF THE REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral to the undersigned magistrate judge in the captioned matter.