Copeland v. Houser
| Decision Date | 04 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3:22-cv-00201-JMK |
| Parties | ROGER COPELAND, SR., Plaintiff, v. EARL HOUSER, Superintendent III, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF ALASKA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
SCREENING ORDER
On September 12, 2022, self-represented prisoner, Roger Copeland, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), filed a Complaint and a civil cover sheet.[1]Plaintiff also filed an application to waive prepayment of the filing fee.[2]On December 22, 2022 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment.[3]Plaintiff brings suit against Earl Houser, Superintendent of Goose Creek Correctional Center for the State of Alaska Department of Corrections (“Defendant”).[4]Plaintiff seeks unspecified injunctive relief, a jury trial, damages in the amount of $5,000,000, punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,000, and an order requiring Defendant to “pay for damage, punitive, mental anguish, [and] duress.”[5]
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner. In this screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action:
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for which relief may be granted, courts consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”[7]In conducting its review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff's pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.[8] Before a court may dismiss any portion of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems, unless to do so would be futile.[9]Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency[.]”[10]
Plaintiff alleges his rights were violated by “Dept. of Correction” on or about March 2020. He alleges he fell down the stairs and hit a door due to a wet floor at the Anchorage Jail. He claims he received surgery on his left arm, but he has permanent damage to his left arm and shoulder, feet, and knees. He also asserts he has damage to his back and to his face and gums due to impact from the fall. He alleges “the medical staff will not provide proper medical.” Plaintiff asserts that the State of Alaska refuses to provide him with a copy of his medical records after he paid $84.00 to the Department of Corrections. He alleges that he has a cast on his hand, it is useless, and his doctor told him “he can't do anything else to it.” He alleges that the Department of Corrections “will not attend to my pain [and] suffering.”[11] The Court takes judicial notice[12]of Plaintiff's status as a pre-trial detainee in the ongoing criminal case at 3AN-18-09350-CR, before the Alaska Superior Court.[13]The Court also takes judicial notice of Plaintiff's previous Section 1983 case before this Court, involving the same underlying criminal case, at Copeland v. Robert, et al., 3:21-cv-00102-SLG.[14]
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff has not met the basic Rule 8 pleading requirements to state a claim upon which relief may granted. Additionally, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have specific, elemental pleading requirements. As pleaded, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient plausible factual details, that if proven true, would constitute a violation of his civil rights. The Court now provides the following guidance to assist Plaintiff in any amended complaint he may file.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [complainant] is entitled to relief[.]” To state a claim, a complaint must demonstrate that a defendant caused the plaintiff harm.[15]Each claim should identify (1) the specific harm that Plaintiff is alleging has occurred to him, (2) when that harm occurred, (3) where that harm was caused, and (4) who he is alleging caused that specific harm to him. While a complaint need not contain every precise, factual detail, “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” are insufficient to state a claim.[16]
Here, Plaintiff alleges he required surgery on his left arm and suffers damage to his arm and shoulder, face and gums, and back, but he does not provide the Court with facts regarding where, when or how the injuries occurred. For example, Plaintiff has not told the Court when he fell, the extent of the injuries at the time of the fall, or what medical care he received for those injuries. Plaintiff does not specify what medical treatment he requested but was denied, who denied treatment, and how it was denied, nor does he provide information regarding which medical records he requested and how he was denied access to them. Moreover, he does not include information connecting either his injuries or surgery to the named Defendant.
Although Plaintiff need not include legal reasoning or briefing, he needs to explain what happened, when and where the events occurred, how he was hurt, what his specific injuries were, and how Defendant or others were involved. Plaintiff should state the facts in his own words, as if he were briefly and concisely telling someone what happened.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.[17]Section 1983 does not confer federal constitutional or federal statutory rights. Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.[18]Upon screening, Plaintiff's Complaint does not state plausible claims for relief under Section 1983 for the following reasons:
III. Each Defendant Must Be a “Person”
A defendant in a civil rights lawsuit must be a “person.” As discussed further below, the person may be sued in either an “individual” or “official” capacity, depending on the type of relief being sought. A lawsuit may include multiple defendants so long as each person acted under color of state law and was involved in causing the violation of a federal right.
Plaintiff has named only Earl Houser in his lawsuit, but he makes allegations against unspecified persons and the State of Alaska and Department of Corrections in his Complaint.[19]The State of Alaska and state agencies, such as Department of Corrections (“DOC”),[20] are not considered “persons” under Section 1983.[21]If Plaintiff wants to name defendants in addition to Superintendent Houser, Plaintiff must name a person or entity that is considered a person under Section 1983.
IV. Defendant Must Be Acting Under the Color of State Law
A defendant in a Section 1983 lawsuit must be “acting under color of state law.”[22]A defendant has acted under color of state law where he or she has “exercised power ‘possessed by the virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.'”[23]Defendant Houser is employed as a superintendent for the Department of Corrections. Therefore, Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendant Houser was acting under color of state law. Any additional defendant named by Plaintiff must have been acting under color of state law.
V. Individual and Official Capacity
In order to properly bring a §1983 claim, Plaintiff needs to name a defendant, that is a state actor, who caused him harm. In a § 1983 action, a defendant may be sued in their “individual” or “official” capacity or both, depending on the type of relief being sought.[24]
A. Individual Capacity
In order for a defendant to be individually liable under Section 1983, that defendant must personally participate in an alleged rights deprivation.[25]“In a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was the actionable cause of the claimed injury.”[26]A defendant sued in his individual capacity may be held liable for money damages.[27]In order for Plaintiff to sue defendants in an individual capacity, he must allege facts that if proven would demonstrate that a defendant (1) personally participated in depriving Plaintiff of his rights and (2) that defendant's actions caused Plaintiff's injury.[28]
Here, Plaintiff makes a claim for monetary damages, but he does not name any defendants as individually liable. The only named Defendant is Earl Houser and it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to make a claim against Defendant Earl Houser in his official capacity.[29]
B. Official Capacity
In a Section 1983 action, a plaintiff may sue a defendant in an official capacity as an alternate way of pleading a claim against the governmental entity for which that individual is an officer or employee.[30]A plaintiff suing a defendant in his official capacity is not required to allege the “named official's personal involvement in the acts or omissions constituting the alleged constitutional violation.”[31]Instead, a plaintiff must only (1) “identify the law or policy challenged” and (2) “name the official within the entity who can appropriately respond to injunctive relief.”[32]However, a defendant sued in his official...
To continue reading
Request your trial