United States District Court, D. Kansas
MICHAEL W. ROGERS, Plaintiff,
SAM CLINE, et al., Defendants.
Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge
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.
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 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. 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
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
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).
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.
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.
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.