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. § 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. 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.
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.
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
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