Davis v. Workman et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne: case dismissed with prejudice as frivolous (cjt, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STEPHEN DAVIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RANDY WORKMAN, ART
)
LIGHTEL, AND DEBBIE
)
ALDRIDGE,
)
Defendants. )

Case No. CIV-12-229-JHP-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights complaint (Dkt. # 1), and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 2). On
May 24, 2012, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 4). To avoid
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must present
factual allegations, assumed to be true, that “raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must
contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. A
court must accept all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true, even if doubtful
in fact, and must construe the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at
555. However, “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a
[plausible] claim of entitlement to relief,” the cause of action should be dismissed. Id. at 558.
A pro se plaintiff’s complaint must be broadly construed under this standard.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520 (1972). The generous construction to be given the pro se litigant’s allegations “does
not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal
claim could be based.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). A reviewing
court need not accept “mere conclusions characterizing pleaded facts.” Bryson v. City of
Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“While
a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.” (quotations and citations omitted)). The court “will not supply additional
factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a
plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-1174 (10th Cir. 1997).
In his complaint, Plaintiff claims violations of his 8th Amendment rights against
“cruel and unusual” punishment and his 14th Amendment rights of “equal protection of the
law” have been violated by inmates using “Hot-Pots and fans to attack me.” Plaintiff goes
on to allege that the “electromagnetic coil . . . .produces electromagnetic transverse waves
of energy, that is capable of traveling through walls. . . . .causing brain malfunction ==
involuntary speech, heart arythmia (sic) and sleep deprivation.” Plaintiff further claims
“[t]hey must have a cellphone, because they are able to transmit my voice to the radio.”
Even giving plaintiff’s complaint a liberal construction, it fails to state a claim for relief.
Furthermore, since it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged,
it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend. Curley v. Perry, 245 F.3d 1278,
2

1281-1282) (quoting Hall v. Bellmon, supra). In order to state a claim for a prison official’s
failure to prevent harm, an inmate must establish that he is incarcerated under conditions
posing a “substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct.
1970, 1977 (1994). An Eighth Amendment claim has both an objective and subjective
component. Id. The objective component requires proof that the condition was “sufficiently
serious.” Id. To meet the objective component, “extreme deprivations are required . . . .”
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 1000, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).
Moreover, the act or omission must “result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of
life’s necessities. . .” To meet the subjective component, the “prison official must have a
sufficiently culpable state of mind,” or in this case, “deliberate indifference to inmate health
or safety.” Farmer, supra, U.S. at 834, S.Ct. at 1977.
The complaint in this case does not meet either requirement. While “prison officials
have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners,” Farmer,
supra, U.S. at 833, S.Ct. 1970, plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish that he is incarcerated
under conditions posing a “substantial risk of serious harm” or that prison officials have been
“deliberately indifferent” to his legitimate safety concerns. For these reasons, plaintiff’s
complaint is dismissed as frivolous, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
3

2.

A separate judgment shall be entered in favor of the defendants and against
plaintiff.

3.

Plaintiff remains obligated to pay in monthly installments the $350.00 filing fee
incurred in this matter.
It is so ordered on this 29th day of May, 2012.

4