United States District Court, D. Kansas
Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge.
case is before the court to screen plaintiff's pro
se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and
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. The court is authorized to
make the same review in cases brought in forma pauperis. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Here plaintiff has pending a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. No. 2.
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.
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 he suffered dog bites to his hand and leg during
his arrest on March 7, 2019. He claims that the bites became
infected and that, while incarcerated, he did not receive
proper treatment or antibiotics for 8 days. He further claims
that he has not received an x-ray for his hand, although it
is still “messed up.”
complaint is written on a form for bringing an action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff describes his claims as
“medical malpractice” and “unprofessional
misconduct.” He names the Saline County Jail and
“medical staff”/Jamie LNU, a nurse practitioner,
as “defendants” (Doc. No. 1, pp. 1-2), although
only the Saline County Jail and “medical
personnel” are listed as defendants in the caption of
the complaint. Partial names of other persons at the Saline
County Jail are mentioned at page 3 of the complaint. But,
these persons are not listed as “defendants” on
pp. 1-2 of the form or in the caption of the complaint. Rule
10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires ...