Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Correct Care Solutions

United States District Court, D. Kansas

May 7, 2019

JAMES SCOTT WILLIAMS II, Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and ARAMARK, Defendants.

          ORDER

          SAM A. CROW, U.S. DISTRICT SENIOR JUDGE

         This case is before the court to screen plaintiff's pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

         I. Pro se standards

         “A 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 Cir. 1997).

         II. Screening standards

         Title 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.

         III. The complaint

         Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that he is an inmate at the Johnson County Adult Detention Center. While his allegations are somewhat unclear, plaintiff appears to claim that in early January 2019 he suffered weight loss and emotional distress when for a seven-day period when his prison meals were served without accounting for plaintiff's beans/legumes allergy. Plaintiff alleges that he fainted on January 7, 2019. He appears to attribute this episode to his food allergy, although his medical providers disagreed.

         Plaintiff further contends that for a period of 20 meals from February 20, 2019 until February 26, 2019, the medical staff placed plaintiff on a regular diet tray when, previously, he had been on a kosher/religious tray. Plaintiff asserts that on March 8, 2019, an officer made an anti-Jewish remark to plaintiff.

         Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied a Passover meal on April 23, 2019. He was told that he had failed to request a Passover meal by the April 18, 2019 deadline. Plaintiff claims he was not told of the deadline in advance and that another inmate received a Passover meal when he placed his request on April 19, 2019.

         IV. Section ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.