United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW U.S. Senior District Judge
matter is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Allen County,
Kansas, Jail, proceeds pro se and forma pauperis.
federal court must conduct a preliminary review of any case
in which a prisoner seeks relief against a governmental
entity or an officer or employee of such an entity.
See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). Following this review,
the court must dismiss any portion of the complaint that is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a
defendant who is immune from that relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
screening, a court liberally construes pleadings filed by a
party proceeding pro se and applies “less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution
and laws of the United States and must show that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of
state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49
avoid a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint
must set out factual allegations that “raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The court
accepts the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true
and construes them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Id. However, “when the allegations
in a complaint, however true, could not raise a [plausible]
claim of entitlement to relief, ” the matter should be
dismissed. Id. at 558. A court need not accept
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action supported by mere conclusory statements.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rather,
“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.” Nasious
v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163
(10th Cir. 2007).
Tenth Circuit has observed that the U.S. Supreme Court's
decisions in Twombley and Erickson set out
a new standard of review for dismissals under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. See Key v.
Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007)(citations
omitted). Following those decisions, 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 internal citations omitted). A plaintiff
“must nudge his claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible.” Smith v. United States, 561
F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). In this context,
“plausible” refers “to the scope of the
allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they
encompass a wide swath of conduct much of it innocent,
” then the plaintiff has not “nudged [the] claims
across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (citing
Twombly at 1974).
presents three grounds for relief: (1) that he told jail
guards, the sheriff, and the jail administrator that he was
in pain and needed to go to the hospital; (2) that his legal
mail is being opened outside his presence; and (3) that he
has told “all guards” that he needs to see mental
health providers. The defendants named in the complaint are
Sheriff Brian Murphy and Mike Jewel, the jail administrator.
to Medical Care
plaintiff's claims assert that he has been denied
adequate medical attention. In an action under Section 1983,
the Court must consider whether a deprivation alleged by a
prisoner violates the Constitution. A prisoner is entitled to
humane conditions of confinement, including adequate medical
care. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
(1994)(quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,
526-27 (1984)). “[D]eliberate indifference to serious
medical needs of prisoners” violates the Eighth
Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 419 U.S. 97,
104-05 (1976). The deliberate indifference standard has two
components; first, the objective component requires that a
condition must be “sufficiently serious” and
second, the subjective component requires that the prison
officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.
Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1230-31
(10th Cir. 2006).
negligent failure to provide adequate medical care does not
violate a prisoner's constitutional rights, even if that
failure rises to medical malpractice. Perkins v. Kan.
Dept. of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803, 811 (10th
Cir. 1999). Finally, a prisoner's disagreement with a
diagnosis or the course of medical care offered is not, in
itself, a constitutional violation. Id.
the complaint offers no factual support for plaintiff's
claims that he was denied adequate medical care, he must
present facts to explain the nature of his medical needs, how
officials responded to his medical complaints, and any ...