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 Labette County Jail
(LCJ). 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). 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 (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 complaint does not “suffice if it
tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement” or “mere conclusory
statements.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted). 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).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege 1)
the deprivation of a federal protected right by 2) a person
or entity acting under color of state law. Schaffer v.
Salt Lake City Corp., 814 F.3d 1151, 1155
(10th Cir. 2016). The Court 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.” Robbins
v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 519 F.3d
1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008).
complaint contains little factual elaboration. Plaintiff
alleges that his private calls with his attorney are being
recorded and that LCJ is holding his incoming and outgoing
mail. The court notes that plaintiff's complaint was
mailed to the court from LCJ.
complaint asks that procedures involving his phone calls and
mail be changed.
LCJ is not a proper defendant.
court has held that a county detention center, which does not
have the authority to sue or be sued, is not a
“person” that may be sued for violations of
§ 1983. See Gray v. Kufahl, 2016 WL 4613394 *4
(D.Kan. 9/6/2016)(Lyon County Detention Center is not a
suable entity); Baker v. Sedgwick County Jail, 2012
WL 5289677 *2 n.3 (D.Kan. 10/24/2012)(Sedgwick County Jail is
not a suable entity under § 1983); Chubb v. Sedgwick
County Jail, 2009 WL 634711 *1 (D.Kan. 3/11/2009)(same);
Howard v. Douglas CountyJail, 2009 WL
1504733 *3 (D.Kan. 5/28/2009)(Douglas County Jail is not a
“person” subject to suit under § 1983).
Therefore, plaintiff's claims against the LCJ should be
dismissed. The Sheriff of Labette County or the Labette
County Board of Commissioners have the authority to sue or be
sued and might be a more proper defendant in this matter if
plaintiff alleges facts showing that either entity is
responsible for the actions which have allegedly violated
plaintiff's rights. A defendant in a § 1983 action