United States District Court, D. Kansas
Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge.
case is before the court for the purpose of screening
plaintiff's pro se complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
Pro se standards
pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). A pro
se litigant, however, is not relieved from following the
same rules of procedure as any other litigant. See Green
v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992),
cert. denied, 507 U.S. 940 (1993). A district court
should not “assume the role of advocate for the pro
se litigant.” Hall, supra. Nor
is the court to “supply additional factual allegations
to round out a plaintiff's complaint.” Whitney
v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th
28 United State Code Section 1915A requires the court to
review cases filed by prisoners seeking redress from a
governmental entity or employee to determine whether the
complaint is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. When deciding whether
plaintiff's complaint “fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, ” the court must determine
whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability
requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility
that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint
pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
Id. The court accepts the plaintiff's well-pled
factual allegations as true and views them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. United States v. Smith,
561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009).
a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights
while he has been a pretrial detainee at the Cherokee County
Jail. Plaintiff names the Cherokee County Jail as a defendant
as well as the following persons: David Groves, Sheriff of
Cherokee County; Michelle Tippie, jail administrator; Thomas
Degroot, jail officer; Amanda Phillips, jail officer; Kristin
Wagner, nurse practitioner; April Macafee, sergeant; and
Judah Eliss, deputy.
lists six counts in the complaint. In Count One, plaintiff
alleges the denial of his due process rights when on March
17, 2018 he was locked down or placed in segregation for 15
days without a legitimate government purpose. Plaintiff
claims that he was denied a disciplinary hearing and that the
disciplinary report was not timely written in violation of
Count Two, plaintiff asserts that his due process rights
against punishment as a pretrial detainee were violated
because he was denied a diet required for medical reasons to
prevent plaintiff from losing weight. Plaintiff asserts that
he weighed 177 pounds on February 1, 2018 when he was
returned to the Cherokee County Jail from the Crawford County
Jail. He asserts that he weighed 157 pounds on March 29,
Count Three, plaintiff alleges illegal retaliation against
his right to petition the government. Plaintiff alleges that
he was taken off his medical diet on August 24, 2017, the day
after he filed a grievance against defendant Tippie for
opening outgoing legal mail. Plaintiff further alleges that
he was placed on disciplinary segregation on August 31, 2017
for stating that he was going to file a grievance and write
to a relevant government oversight agency.
Count Four, plaintiff contends that on or about June 28, 2017
he discovered that jail officers opened a manila envelope
that was addressed to his lawyer. He claims that this ...