Opinion
CIV-24-267-JD
08-02-2024
COREY JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. JASON HICKS, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AMANDA MAXFIELD GREEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, a state pre-trial detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc 1).United States District Judge Jodi W. Dishman referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. 4). The undersigned has reviewed the Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As explained fully below, it is recommended that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety.
Citations to the parties' filings and attached exhibits will refer to this Court's CM/ECF pagination.
I. Plaintiff's Complaint
Plaintiff names twenty-one Defendants in the Complaint, all sued in both their individual and official capacities, and lists them as follows:
• Jason Hicks, District Attorney;
• Cortnie Siess, Assistant District Attorney;
• Clerk Melody Harper, District Court;
• Inv. Justin Scott, DTF;
• Ryan Anderson, OBN;
• Ryan Belcher, HSI;
• Luis Bonfil, OBN;
• Carrie Farris, OSBI;
• Chisholm Hale, OBN;
• Mike Hauge, HSI;
• Garrett Hunt, DPD;
• Rick Lang, DTF;
• Jenna Mooneyham, OBN;
• Keith Powell, OBN;
• James Shepard, OBN;
• Rick Strain, OBN;
• Timothy Vann, Stephens Co. Sheriff's Office;
• Bobby Bowen, Stephens Co. Sheriff's Office;
• Det. Joshua Brown, DPD;
• Criminalist - Edmond, OSBI, Forensic Center; and
• Javier Martinez, Jail Admin.(Doc. 1, at 1-2; 5).
Against all Defendants, Plaintiff asserts a violation of “[d]ue process under color of law, Deprivation of rights under color of law, civil rights violations, 8th Amendment, 14thAmendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1994, 5th Amendment, rights under Oklahoma & Texas Constitution.” (Id. at 7). Plaintiff alleges that he was “kidnapped from his home in Arlington, Texas then incarcerated in Stephens County on case numbers CF-2022-27 and CF-2022-60” and “has not been given a remedy for complaint.” (Id. at 8). For relief, Plaintiff requests “[d]ischarge/setoff complaint(s); compensation for punitive damages, lost time as well as pain and suffering (mental and physical torture).” (Id.)
Plaintiff's second claim, alleged against Defendant Javier Martinez, asserts a constitutional violation regarding his access to the courts. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he requested to access the law library several times because he “has the right to defend himself in court and to put up a legal defense.” (Id. at 9). For relief, he requests for the jail to “[g]ive incarcerated prisoners access at fighting their case(s) in the law library” and “[d]ischarge/setoff or dismiss cause no's. CF-2022-27 and CF-2022-60 for violating rights.” (Id.)
II. The Court's Duty to Screen Prisoner Complaints
Federal law mandates the screening of each complaint in a civil action filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity and each case in which the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), 1915(e)(2). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it 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. Id.
The court's review of a complaint under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) mirrors that required for reviewing a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court must accept Plaintiff'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). 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 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).” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (footnote and citation omitted). Bare legal conclusions in a complaint, however, 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); see also Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that although courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, courts “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint”). 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 Iqbal). “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, 935 F.2d at 1110. 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).
III. Plaintiff Has Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted.
In Claim One, Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient facts specifically describing the alleged violation of his rights, including when the violation allegedly occurred or what each individual Defendant allegedly did. (See Doc. 1, at 7-8). In a case such as this one, where Plaintiff has brought claims against multiple defendants, “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 or her.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). An allegation against all Defendants that Plaintiff was “kidnapped from his home” and then incarcerated is too vague to state a claim. 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”). 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). Accordingly, the Court should dismiss Claim One for failure to state a claim.
In Claim Two, Plaintiff names Defendant Javier Martinez as the sole Defendant but does not mention Defendant Martinez in his factual allegations. (See Doc. 1, at 9). Plaintiff attached to the Complaint five Stephens County Detention Center request to staff forms, and two of the forms involve Plaintiff requesting access to a law library and Defendant Martinez informing Plaintiff that the jail does not provide a law library. (Id. at Ex. 2, at 4-5). “To assert a constitutional claim for violation of [the right to adequate access to the courts], a confined plaintiff must allege facts indicating (1) a denial of legal resources, and (2) that the denial of such resources hindered his or her efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim.” Friedman v. Kennard, 248 Fed.Appx. 918, 921 (10th Cir. 2007). Additionally, “pretrial detainees are not entitled to access to a law library if other available means exist to access the court.” United States v. Taylor, 183 F.3d 1199, 1205 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing Love v. Summit Cnty., 776 F.2d 908, 912-13 (10th Cir. 1985)). Plaintiff does not allege a complete denial of legal resources or that he has been hindered in pursuing a nonfrivolous claim, only vaguely asserting that he “has the right to defend himself in court and put up a legal defense.” (Doc. 1, at 9). Without allegations regarding a lack of access to other legal resources, such as an attorney, and the injury he has suffered, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a claim. See Taylor, 183 F.3d at 1204-05 (holding no constitutional violation occurred when a pro se pre-trial detainee without access to a law library had access to court-appointed standby counsel). Thus, the Court should dismiss Claim Two for failure to state a claim.
IV. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice to the refiling.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before August 23, 2024, 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 referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge and terminates the referral unless and until the matter is re-referred.