United States District Court, D. Kansas
Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge
has filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He is a prisoner at the Saline County Jail. This
case is before the Court to screen plaintiff's 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. 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).
Court, however, will not accept broad allegations which lack
sufficient detail to give fair notice of what plaintiff's
claims are. Section 1983 plaintiffs must “make clear
exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide
each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the
claims against him or her, as distinguished from collective
allegations against the state.” Robbins v. Oklahoma
ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 519 F.3d 1242, 1250
(10th Cir. 2008).
case arises from an incident on July 17, 2019, when plaintiff
was attacked by another inmate in a common area of the jail.
Plaintiff names as defendants Roger Soldan, the Saline County
Sheriff and the following officers at the Saline County Jail:
Stan Fruits; Angela Peck, Matthew Nelson, Benjamin McManigal,
and Angela Finch. Plaintiff asserts that he was attacked,
chased and punched several times by an inmate named Herrera.
According to plaintiff, Herrera inflicted damage to
plaintiff's mouth and right eye, and caused plaintiff to
injure his knee.
claims that defendant Peck watched the entire incident by
video. Plaintiff asserts that Peck did not push the panic
alarm to alert other staff members or try to intervene.
contends that defendant Nelson was assigned to other security
cameras. He claims that defendant Nelson also watched the
attack without responding.
asserts that defendant McManigal was the shift supervisor
overseeing Peck and Nelson. He asserts that defendant Finch
was in a supervisory position over McManigal; that defendant
Fruits, as Captain of the jail, was Finch's direct
supervisor; and that defendant Soldan, as Sheriff, ...