United States District Court, D. Kansas
CROW, U.S. DISTRICT SENIOR JUDGE
has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This action was filed in state court and has
been removed to this court. From the complaint, plaintiff
appears to be an inmate at the Wyandotte County Adult
Detention Center (WCADC). He names Correct Care Solutions
(CCS) as the sole defendant in his handwritten complaint
(Doc. No. 4, p. 1) and adds Kay Thompson as a defendant in an
attached complaint written on a court-produced form for
§ 1983 actions (Doc. No. 4, p. 9).
alleges that while incarcerated at the WCADC he did not
receive medication for a seizure condition until July 28,
2017 when plaintiff was hospitalized after suffering a
seizure, even though there was information available well
before that time that he suffered seizures. Plaintiff has
also supplemented his complaint with allegations that he has
had shingles that defendants failed to diagnose and treat
case is now before the court upon defendant CCS's motion
for dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) - Doc. No. 6 -
and other pending motions.
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). 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 Cir. 1997).
Rule 12(b)(6) standards
deciding whether plaintiff's complaint “fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted” under
Rule 12(b)(6), 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)). A complaint will not “suffice if
it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.'” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
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. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). A
plausibility analysis is a context-specific task depending on
a host of considerations, including judicial experience,
common sense and the strength of competing explanations for
the defendant's conduct. See id. at 679;
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 567.
court will not accept broad allegations which lack sufficient
detail to give fair notice of what plaintiff's claims
are. Section 1983 plaintiffs must “make clear exactly
who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each
individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claims
against him or her, as distinguished from collective
allegations against the state.” Robbins v. Oklahoma
ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 519 F.3d 1242, 1250
(10th Cir. 2008). This can be particularly important in
prisoner litigation. Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178,
1185 (10th Cir. 2010)(“A prisoner claim will
often not be plausible unless it recites facts that might
well be unnecessary in other contexts.”).
point, the court's role is not to weigh potential
evidence the parties might present at trial but to assess
whether the complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a
claim for relief. See MacArthur v. San Juan County,
309 F.3d 1216, 1221 (10th Cir. 2002)(quotation
omitted). An exception to this rule is that the court may
consider documents referred to in the complaint that are
central to the plaintiff's claim. Id.
dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) follow the arguments made in a
motion to dismiss. But, the court may dismiss on the basis of
its own arguments when it is patently obvious that plaintiff
could not prevail on the facts alleged and allowing an
opportunity to amend the complaint would be futile. See
Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1172
(10th Cir. 1997); Hall, 935 F.2d at
1109-10. In this order, the court relies on arguments made by
defendants and arguments raised by the court.
The complaint fails to state a claim ...