Fields v. Okla. Cnty. Det. Ctr., Case No. CIV-15-518-F
| Decision Date | 23 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CIV-15-518-F |
| Parties | JAMES FIELDS, JR. Plaintiff, v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Plaintiff, a state inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. This matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for preliminary review, for conducting any necessary hearings, including evidentiary hearings, for the entry of appropriate orders as to non-dispositive matters, and for the preparation and submission of proposed findings and recommendations as to dispositive matters as referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Upon preliminary review, it is recommended that this action be summarily DISMISSED.
Plaintiff purportedly brings this action against the Oklahoma County Detention Center ("OCDC"); Sheriff John Wetsel (sic); Armor-Medical Health Administrator Carter; Nurse Sheila, OCDC; Nurse Karen, OCDC; Dr. Childs, OCDC; Eight John or Jane Doe Defendants employed by the OCDC in relation to nursing, the law library, mail room, commissary and inmate trust accounts; Armor-Med John Does related to inmate co-payments; Detention Officer Norvas, OCDC; and Telmate John and Jane Does. (ECF No. 1:1-3). Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth a limited number of specific claims and consists primarily of vague and/or incoherent allegations arising from his time detained in the OCDC.1 The undersigned will address each of the claims and allegations below.
The Court must review each complaint brought by a prisoner (a) with respect to prison conditions; or (b) who is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In such circumstances, the Court is required to dismiss a complaint or any portion of a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
It is recommended that any claims against the OCDC be dismissed. The capacity of an entity to be sued is determined by the law of the state in which the federal district court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Pursuant to Oklahoma law, each organized county can sue and be sued. Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 1. The authority of each Oklahoma county is exercised by its board of county commissioners, Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 3, and a lawsuit brought against a county must be filed against the board of county commissioners of that county. Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 4. A county jail is a subdivision of the county in which it is located, it does not possess a separate legal identity underOklahoma law, and therefore the OCDC cannot be sued. See Lindsey v. Thomson, No. 06-7114, 2007 WL 2693970, at *3 (10th Cir. Sept. 10, 2007) (); White v. Utah, No. 00-4109, 2001 WL 201980, at *1 (10th Cir. March 1, 2001) (); Aston v. Cunningham, No. 99-4156, 2000 WL 796086, at *4 n.3 (10th Cir. June 21, 2000) (). Thus, any claims against the OCDC should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff names Sheriff Whetsel as a Defendant in this action. Plaintiff does not allege that Sheriff Whetsel personally participated in the events underlying any of his claims. Rather, his only allegation against Sheriff Whetsel is that he "failed to respond pretaining (sic) wanton and malicious acts." (ECF No. 1:1). To impose supervisory liability, a plaintiff first must "establish the supervisor's subordinates violated the [C]onstitution." Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1195 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The next step is to "'show an 'affirmative link' between the supervisor and the constitutional violation.'" Cox v. Ganz, 800 F.3d 1231, 1248 (10thCir. 2015) (quoting Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 435 (10th Cir. 2014)). As explained by the court in Cox, the "affirmative link" has three related prongs: "'(1) personal involvement, (2) sufficient causal connection, and (3) culpable state of mind.'" Id. (quoting Dodds, 614 F.3d at 1195).
"[S]upervisory liability allows a plaintiff to impose liability upon a defendant-supervisor who creates, promulgates, [or] implements ... a policy ... which subjects, or causes to be subjected that plaintiff to the deprivation of any rights ... secured by the Constitution." Cox, 800 F.3d at 1248 (internal quotation marks omitted). The problem is Plaintiff has not stated any facts demonstrating that Sheriff Whetsel created a policy that denied Plaintiff's constitutional rights, id., had "actual knowledge of past constitutional violations being carried out by a subordinate, and [did] nothing to stop future occurrences," Dodds, 614 F.3d at 1212 (Tymkovich, J., concurring), knew about the conduct and condoned it, id., or failed to train or supervise Detention Center staff. Id. He makes only one conclusory, unsubstantiated statement that the Sheriff failed to respond to "wanton and malicious acts." (ECF No. 1:1). "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Sheriff Whetsel should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff states that the OCDC mail room opened his legal mail and "did deliberately tamper with incoming 'mail-ordered' Georgetown Law Journal." (ECF No. 1:5). Though Plaintiff indicates that he intends to assert an equal protection claim based on these allegations, he alleges no facts, nor cites to any authority, supporting the finding of an equal protection violation in this regard. On the other hand, the Tenth Circuit has recognized an inmate's constitutional "right of access to the courts" may be violated by interference with the inmate's legal mail. Simkins v. Bruce, 406 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2005). Indeed, the opening of a prisoner's legal mail outside his presence could violate rights to access to the courts under either the First Amendment (Petition Clause) or the Fifth Amendment (Due Process Clause). Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12 (2002). Regardless of its origin, to establish such a violation an inmate plaintiff must, at a minimum, show the opening of legal mail hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-55; Treff v. Galetka, 74 F.3d 191, 194 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, conclusory allegations are not sufficient in this regard. See Wardell v. Duncan, 470 F.3d 954, 959 (10th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff does not assert that tampering with or the opening of his mail violated his right of access. Nor does he allege facts suggesting any actual injury to his right of access. The Court "will not supply additional facts, nor will [it] construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded." See Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, any claim based upon Plaintiff'sallegations related to his mail should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that the inmate trust "did harm ability to pay Western District Clerk of Court," see ECF No. 1:5, and purports to name Detention Officer Norvas, OCDC Inmates Trust, as a Defendant. (ECF No. 1:3). Although the court is required to exercise a liberal interpretation of plaintiff's pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U .S. 519 (1972), the court need not assume the role of advocate for plaintiff, and he must present more than conclusory allegations in order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Though based entirely on speculation, the Court could construe this statement as an attempt to assert a violation of Plaintiff's right of access to the courts. However, Plaintiff fails to identify any underlying legal claim he has been prevented from pursuing as a result of this alleged harm to his ability to pay this Court. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416 (2002) (). In any event, Plaintiff's allegations are so vague it is not even clear that right of access is his intended claim and if so, certainly he has not alleged enough factual information to support the same. Thus, this claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff appears to assert a claim based on the fact that the OCDC does not have a law library. (ECF No. 1:2, 5). The Constitution guarantees "inmates the right to 'adequate, effective and meaningful' access to the courts." Beville v. Ednie, 74 F.3d 210, 212 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977)). This right extends only as far as protecting inmates' ability to "attack their sentences, directly or collaterally" and "to challenge the conditions of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial