Opinion
CIV-24-123-HE
07-10-2024
EMMANUEL WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. GARFIELD COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendant(s).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AMANDA MAXFIELD GREEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc 1).United States District Judge Joe Heaton 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 three Defendants in the Complaint: (1) the Garfield County Jail; (2) Corey Rink, Sheriff, in his individual capacity; and (3) Daylyn Rivers, Jail Administrator, in his individual capacity. (Doc. 1, at 1, 4). In Claim I, against Defendants Rink and Rivers, Plaintiff asserts a violation of his right to adequate medical care, alleging that when he asked a nurse for pain pills for his back, “they would not even provide [him] Tylenol” but told him he must purchase Tylenol from commissary. (Id. at 6-7). He also alleges that the Garfield County Jail generally does not offer medical or mental health care and often places mentally ill inmates in cells that are used for arrestees during the booking process. (Id. at 7-8).
In Claim II, also against Defendants Rink and Rivers, Plaintiff asserts that he has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because “[the Garfield County Jail] lets some of the officers just run around and bully some of [the] prisoners.” (Id. at 6, 9). Plaintiff alleges that the inmates' sleeping mats have no padding, his towel is “so old you can see through it,” the jail is not feeding inmates sufficiently, and the detention officers are “rude and lazy.” (Id. at 10).
For relief for both claims, Plaintiff requests $1.5 million for his pain and suffering (Id. at 6, 9).
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. Analysis
A. The Garfield County Jail Is Not an Entity Subject to Suit Under § 1983.
Though neither claim is specifically asserted against the Garfield County Jail, Plaintiff has named the Garfield County Jail as a defendant in this action. (Doc. 1, at 1). Section 1983 “creates a private right of action against any person who, under color of state law, deprives another individual of ‘any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'” Ripley v. Wyo. Med. Ctr., Inc., 559 F.3d 1119, 1121-22 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). But “[a] county jail in Oklahoma, as a subdivision of the county in which it is located, has no separate legal identity under Oklahoma law” and thus is “not amenable to suit” under § 1983. Hickey v. Oklahoma Cnty. Det. Ctr., 2022 WL 1221645, at *5 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 23, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 945319 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 29, 2022). “In Oklahoma, suits against a county are brought against the board of county commissioners.” Reid v. Hamby, 1997 WL 537909 at *6 (10th Cir. Sept. 2, 1997) (unpublished) (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 4). Thus, any claims against Defendant Garfield County Jail should be dismissed.
B. Plaintiff Has Failed to Allege the Personal Participation of Defendants Rink and Rivers.
Plaintiff has named Defendants Corey Rink and Daylyn Rivers as defendants to both claims. (Doc. 1, at 5-6). However, he fails to allege anything fact-specific about either defendant in connection with the alleged violations of his rights. (See id. at 5-10). For a defendant to be liable for any civil rights violation, the defendant must have had direct personal responsibility for the claimed deprivation. See Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1993)) (affirming district court's dismissal where “plaintiff failed to allege personal participation of the defendants”). In other words, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate each defendant personally participated in the alleged violation, see Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976), by “‘identify[ing] specific actions taken by particular defendants.'” See Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210, 1226 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 532 (10th Cir. 2011)).
Even if a defendant is a supervisor, the defendant is liable only if he or she is “personally involved in the constitutional violation, and a sufficient causal connection [] exist[s] between the supervisor and the constitutional violation.” Serna v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 455 F.3d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). “Thus, [] Plaintiff must base supervisory liability ‘upon active unconstitutional behavior' and ‘more than a mere right to control employees.'” Davis v. Okla. Cnty., No. CIV-08-0550-HE, 2009 WL 2901180, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 3, 2009) (quoting Serna, 455 F.3d at 1153). Because Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts demonstrating personal participation by Defendants Rink and Rivers in the asserted constitutional violations, both claims should be dismissed. IV. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) in its entirety. The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before July 31, 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.