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.
has written his complaint on forms for bringing an action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that he is an inmate
at the Butler County Jail. Plaintiff asserts that defendant
Miller was a nurse who worked at the jail and that defendant
Haubenstein currently works at the jail as a nurse. He claims
that although he told defendants that he was allergic to
penicillin, defendant Miller gave him amoxicillin and
augmentin which are in the penicillin family. He alleges that
this caused him to break out in hives all over his body.
further claims that defendant Miller did not follow a
surgeon's orders for post-surgery pain and infection
medication. Instead, plaintiff was given regular medications
“off the cart.” According to the complaint, after
he had a second surgery, it was 24 hours before plaintiff
received anything for pain and again it was “off the
cart, ” not what the doctor ordered. Plaintiff does not
allege who was responsible for dispensing medication to him
after the second surgery.
also claims that he broke out in hives whenever he ate beans,
but it took almost two and one-half months for him to see a
doctor to confirm his allergy. Plaintiff alleges that he
still has hives from being given the wrong medication and
being given beans for lunch and dinner every day for months.
He also complains that he is being served vegetarian plates
with beans, when he is not a vegetarian and would like to eat
The complaint fails to state a claim against ...