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.

Rogers v. Cline

United States District Court, D. Kansas

September 25, 2019

MICHAEL W. ROGERS, Plaintiff,
v.
SAM CLINE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge

         Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is a state prisoner at the El Dorado Correctional Facility (EDCF). This case is before the court to screen plaintiff’s 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. 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, 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).

         III. The complaint

         Plaintiff alleges that on or about June 25, 2019, defendant Sam Cline, the warden of EDCF, closed the protective custody managed movement unit, where plaintiff was housed, and forced plaintiff to be released into general population without signing a protective custody waiver. Plaintiff asserts that defendant Richard English, a unit team supervisor at EDCF followed orders and forced plaintiff out of protective custody and into general population without signing the required waiver. He further claims that defendant “EAI Sissell” at EDCF did not speak to plaintiff regarding the option of signing a waiver of protective custody or hold a meeting to determine whether there was a danger in placing plaintiff in general population.[1]

         Plaintiff asserts that he was assaulted by a white supremacist group in July 2017 at EDCF. He further claims that he was “approached” by members of the same group in February 2018 and ultimately placed in protective custody. He alleges that on July 19, 2019, after he was removed from protective custody without his consent, he was stabbed nine times by members of the same hate group.

         Plaintiff claims a denial of his procedural due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Counts 1-3 and 7-9) and the denial of his Eighth Amendment rights (Counts 4-6). He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

         IV. Procedur ...


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.