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). 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).
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. Section 1915 of Title 28
also authorizes the court to dismiss cases which fail to
state a claim in in forma pauperis proceedings.
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' . . .
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 the law 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 was the victim of four instances of serious
sexual misconduct by a member of the Anderson County
Sheriff's Department when he was a pretrial detainee at
the Anderson County Jail in November and December 2016. The
last incident occurred in the middle of December 2016.
alleges that nothing happened after he reported the
incidents; that “defendants maintained policies and
procedures . . . that permitted . . . unregulated,
unrestricted access to vulnerable prisoners;” and that
he never received medical or psychological treatment. Doc.
No. 1, p. 2. He also asserts that there was a failure to
train and supervise employees. Doc. No. 1, p. 3.
alleges federal law claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
state law claims. He names the following defendants:
Lexington Laiter, former Anderson County Sheriff's
Deputy; Jeffrey Hupp, former Anderson County Sheriff; FNU
Laiter, former Anderson County Undersheriff; John Doe #1,
Anderson County Sheriff's Department employee; John Doe
#2, Anderson County ...