Jolley v. San Juan County Adult Detention Center et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior District Judge James A. Parker dismissing without prejudice re 1 Complaint and allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by 10/23/2017 (bap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JAY WILLIAM JOLLEY,
SAN JUAN COUNTY ADULT DETENTION
CENTER, FNU HAVAL, FNU WEBB,
JOHN AND JANE DOES,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court, sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, considers Plaintiff Jay
William Jolley’s Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Complaint) [Doc. 1], filed on April 10,
2017. Plaintiff is incarcerated, appears pro se, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s
Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b) for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Plaintiff will be granted thirty (30) days
in which to file an amended complaint.
On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint For Violation of Civil Rights (Complaint)
against Defendants San Juan County Adult Detention Center, Warden Havel, Assistant Warden
Webb, and unknown medical nursing staff members and jail officers. [Doc. 1] Plaintiff alleges
that he had a broken ankle when he was admitted for booking and pretrial detention at the San
Juan County Adult Detention Center on June 3, 2016. [Doc. 1 at 12] Plaintiff further alleges
that unnamed officials at the San Juan County Adult Detention Center refused his requests for
medical treatment and instead “punished” him by forcing him to wear a “turtle suit” and placing
him on suicide watch. [Doc. 12 at 13] After four days, Plaintiff was transported to San Juan
Regional, where x-rays were performed and he was diagnosed with a fractured tibia. [Doc. 1 at
15] Plaintiff contends that the delay in medical treatment “may cause perminate [sic] damage &
infringe upon [his] ability to walk and function at 100% of [his] ability.” [Doc. 1 at 15]
Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks monetary damages for the alleged violation of his right to be free
from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution. [Doc. 1 at 5]
The Court has the discretion to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte under
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. See §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). “Dismissal of a pro se
complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot
prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.”
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). The burden is on the plaintiff to frame a
complaint that 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 Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Id.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and “[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). Therefore, “if the court can reasonably read the
pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the
plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor
syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” Id. At the
same time, however, it is not “the proper function of the district court to assume the role of
advocate for the pro se litigant.” Id.
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)
(emphasis added). Although municipalities and local governments are “persons” subject to suit
under § 1983, Monell v. Dep’t of Social Serv. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978),
“[g]enerally, governmental sub-units are not separate suable entities that may be sued under §
1983,” Hinton v. Dennis, 362 F. App’x 904, 907 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). Defendant San
Juan County Adult Detention Center is a governmental sub-unit and, therefore, it “is not a person
or legally created entity capable of being sued.” Aston v. Cunningham, No. 99-4156, 2000 WL
796086 at *4 n.3 (10th Cir. 2000) (unpublished).
To the extent that Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally may be construed to name the Board of
County Commissioners of the County of San Juan 1 as a defendant, it nonetheless fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. It is well established that a county cannot “be held liable
solely because it employs a tortfeasor – or, in other words, [it] cannot be held liable under § 1983
on a respondeat superior theory.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 658 (emphasis in original). Rather,
counties “are subject to liability [under § 1983] only for their official policies or customs.”
Starrett v. Wadley, 876 F.2d 808, 818 (10th Cir. 1983); see Monell, 436 U.S. at 694 (“[I]t is
New Mexico state law governs the capacity of a governmental entity to be sued. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Under
New Mexico law, counties are granted the same powers as municipalities and, therefore, may sue and be sued. See
NMSA 1978, §§ 3-18-1(A) and 4-37-1. Nonetheless, “[i]n all proceedings by or against a county, the name in
which the county shall be sued shall be the board of county commissioners of the county of [the appropriate
county].” NMSA 1978, § 4-46-1.
when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those
whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the
government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege
that San Juan County had an official policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional
violation and, therefore, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendant San Juan County Adult
Detention Center will be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Complaint also names Warden Haval and Assistant Warden Webb as
defendants. “Under § 1983, government officials are not vicariously liable for the misconduct of
their subordinates” and, therefore, “it is not enough for a plaintiff merely to show a defendant
was in charge of other state actors who actually committed the violation. Instead, . . . the
plaintiff must establish a deliberate intentional act by the supervisor to violate constitutional
rights.” Serna v. Colorado Dep’t of Corr., 455 F.3d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
To “demonstrate an affirmative link between the
supervisor and the violation,” the plaintiff must satisfy “three related prongs: (1) personal
involvement, (2) sufficient causal connection, and (3) culpable state of mind.”
Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1195 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege that Defendants Haval and Webb personally were
involved in the alleged deprivation of medical care, nor does it allege that they adopted a “plan
or policy . . . –express or otherwise—showing [their] authorization or approval of such
misconduct.” Id. at 1201 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to allege facts demonstrating an affirmative link between Defendants Haval and
Webb and the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims
against them will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may
Lastly, Plaintiff’s Complaint names as defendants “unknown medical Dept nurses &
nursing administration” and “unknown jail officers.” [Doc. 1 at 3] “Courts have generally
recognized the ability of a plaintiff to use unnamed defendants so long as the plaintiff provides
an adequate description of some kind which is sufficient to identify the person involved so
process eventually can be served.” Roper v. Grayson, 81 F.3d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1996).
Additionally, a § 1983 complaint that names multiple governmental actors 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.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th
Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). Thus, “[w]hen various officials have taken different actions
with respect to a plaintiff, the plaintiff’s facile, passive-voice showing that his rights ‘were
violated’ will not suffice. Likewise insufficient is a plaintiff’s more active-voice yet
undifferentiated contention that ‘defendants’ infringed his rights.” Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d
1210, 1225-26 (10th Cir. 2013). “Rather, it is incumbent upon a plaintiff to identify specific
actions taken by particular defendants in order to make out a viable § 1983” claim. Id.
(emphasis in original; internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint fails
to allege any facts from which the unknown defendants may be identified and it fails to describe
any specific actions taken by particular unknown defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff’s § 1983
claims against the unknown defendants will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff may be able to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint with more precise
pleading. The Court will grant Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint must identify the person or persons responsible for the alleged
constitutional violations and “must explain what each defendant did to him . . . ; when the
defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him . . . ; and what specific legal right the
plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d
1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). Failure timely to file an amended complaint may result in the
dismissal of this action without further notice.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint For Violation of Civil Rights [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED without
prejudice; and Plaintiff is allowed to file an amended complaint by October 23, 2017;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail to Plaintiff, together with a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order, a form § 1983 complaint, with instructions.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?