Opinion
Case No. CIV-18-963-F
11-29-2018
MARSHEL SHAWN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. KRISTY STENSON, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Marshel Shawn Williams, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various violations. (ECF No. 1). United States District Judge Stephen P. Friot 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 for failure to state a claim.
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); 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).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must accept Mr. Williams' 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. Williams 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 Iqbal).
III. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT/ALLEGATIONS
On or about August 10, 2018, Plaintiff was arrested and booked into the Oklahoma County Detention Center (OCDC). (ECF No. 1:5). Mr. Williams apparently suffers from acid reflux, which he described as "terimanal" "[a]fter 3rd day," and "acute" by August 14th. (ECF No. 1:5). While in the OCDC, Mr. Williams twice received medical attention—he was once "refused medication" and once "given medication that was no use." (ECF No. 1:5-6). Plaintiff describes the situation as "so poor" that it caused him to: (1) urinate/defecate on himself; (2) be unable to stand or eat; (3) suffer cramps, sweating, shaking, and throwing up blood; (4) pass out; and (5) suffer memory deterioration. (ECF No. 1:5-6).
Regarding his claim(s) for relief, Plaintiff cites a violation of the 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. (ECF No. 1:8). Plaintiff has sued two Defendants—both employees of the OCDC: (1) Kristy Stenson, jail administrator and (2) Bonny Gergens, chief of medical staff at OCDC. (ECF No. 1:1, 4). Mr. Williams sues these Defendants in their individual and official capacities and seeks monetary damages. (ECF No. 1:4, 9).
IV. DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff makes general allegations regarding violations of six constitutional amendments. See supra. But aside from stating that he fell ill while in the custody of the OCDC, Mr. Williams has failed to provide any specific details in support of how he believes each Defendant had violated his constitutional rights. Although Plaintiff has named Defendants Stenson and Gergens, he states: "Due to loss of memory and lack of nutrition I cannot identify everything particular to exact person." (ECF No. 1:8). Plaintiff refers to "Attachment #1" to set forth the factual basis of his claims, but "Attachment 1" only outlines the facts set forth by the undersigned, supra, regarding Plaintiff's illness and treatment. See ECF No. 1:5-6 ("Attachment Claim #1"). In the attachment, Mr. Williams refers to "officers," "jail staff," "medical," and "staff members," but he does not identify either Defendant Stenson or Defendant Gergens by name as having been involved with his treatment or alleged lack thereof.
Plaintiff's reliance on violations of constitutional amendments, without more, are considered only "labels and conclusions," which is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Additionally, Mr. Williams' failure to link either Defendant Stenson or Defendant Gergens 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.").
In a case such as this one where Mr. Williams 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 or her." Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). Mr. Williams 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). Without more information, the Court should dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
V. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) 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 December 17, 2018. 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.
ENTERED on November 29, 2018.
/s/_________
SHON T. ERWIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE