United States District Court, D. Kansas
CROW, U.S. DISTRICT SENIOR JUDGE
case is before the court to screen plaintiff's pro
se complaint (Doc. No. 1) and related materials pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has stated his complaint
on a form for bringing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
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. 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. 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). The court, however, is
not required to accept legal conclusions alleged in the
complaint as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
“Thus, mere ‘labels and conclusions' and
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action' will not suffice” to state a claim.
Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1191
(10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
A complaint alleging that several defendants violated §
1983 must plainly allege exactly who, among the many
defendants named, did what to plaintiff, with enough detail
to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis
of the claims against him or her. See Robbins v. Okla. ex
rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 519 F.3d 1242, 1248-1250
(10th Cir. 2008).
alleges that on an unspecified date, an unknown Wichita
police officer stopped and detained plaintiff while he was
walking up to a friend's house. The officer told
plaintiff he was a robbery suspect and placed plaintiff in
handcuffs. Other police cars arrived. Plaintiff was stood up
in front of the police car lights and was later told that he
was “pointed out” as participating in a violent
robbery in which several hundred dollars and a gold chain
were stolen. Plaintiff was then placed in a squad car. An
unidentified officer and “the commanding officer”
(also unidentified) asked plaintiff for permission to search
plaintiff's car. Plaintiff refused. Then, “the
officer” took plaintiff out of the squad car, removed
plaintiff's car keys from plaintiff's pocket, and
unlocked and searched plaintiff's car. Plaintiff alleges
that over $10, 000 was removed from plaintiff's car by
the officer and placed as evidence, according to the officer.
claims that he was booked into jail on multiple offenses, and
that all except a robbery charge have been dismissed.
According to plaintiff, the robbery charge remains pending
even though the alleged victim who identified plaintiff has
recanted. Plaintiff alleges he has been told more recently
that there was no money taken from his vehicle. Plaintiff
appears to claim that his money has been lost.
alleges illegal search and seizure, wrongful incarceration
and deliberate indifference. He seeks damages “from
each unknown Wichita police officer in No. 17-CR-894 that
participated in the illegal search of [his] vehicle.”
Doc. No. 1, p. 7.
Screening the complaint
plaintiff is bringing a § 1983 claim, he 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.” Bruner v. Baker,
506 F.3d 1021, 1025-26 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Plaintiff's complaint fails to state ...