Chambers v. Trammell et al
Filing
40
OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne : Granting 34 defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (case terminated) (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TIMOTHY CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANITA TRAMMELL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 15-031-JHP-SPS
OPINION AND ORDER
This action is before the court on Defendants Anita Trammell and Robert Patton’s
motion to dismiss (Dkt. 34). Plaintiff, a former inmate at Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP)
in McAlester, Oklahoma, brings this action under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking
relief for alleged constitutional violations during his incarceration at that facility. The
defendants are Anita Trammell, Former Warden of OSP; Robert Patton, Former Director of
the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Unknown Correctional Officers 1-4; and Chief
of Security Peterson.1
Plaintiff alleges that on November 17, 2014, he and his cellmate covered the window
of their cell. A correctional officer called for backup when he saw the covering. The officer
opened the food port and told Plaintiff and his cellmate to uncover the window and to cuff
up.
Plaintiff and his cellmate followed the instructions, and at least four unknown
correctional officers came through the cell door.
Plaintiff was taken to the shower, where he was stripped and only allowed to wear his
boxers, shackles, and cuffs. He then was taken from his pod to a breezeway area and told
1
To the extent the defendants are sued in their official capacities as DOC officials, Plaintiff’s
claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It is well settled that a damages suit against a state
official in his official capacity is merely another way of pleading an action against the State. See
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). See also Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police,
491 U.S. 58, 71 (1988) (state officials sued in their official capacities are not “persons” for purposes
of a § 1983 suit, because the suit is against the official’s office and not against the official).
to face the wall, next to his cellmate. An unknown correctional officer on Plaintiff’s left side
then punched him in his ribs, and the unknown officer on Plaintiff’s right side slammed his
head into a window. The cellmate was screaming. “Ouch, ouch,” but Plaintiff could not see
him.
Plaintiff then was taken down a hallway with his wrists being twisted until he thought
they would break. He next was taken outside in the cold weather and up some stairs. He was
screaming in pain as he was taken to an exam room in the medical area, where his vital signs
were taken. He was having a panic attack, and the nurse told him to take deep breaths. After
the exam, an officer Plaintiff described as the “big” officer allegedly sexually assaulted him
by raising Plaintiff’s cuffed hands and dropping them on Plaintiff’s penis and testicles,
causing excruciating pain. The officer also stood behind Plaintiff and put his hand over
Plaintiff’s mouth and nose, making it impossible for him to breathe. A young correctional
officer hit Plainitff’s ribs with his fist, and the big officer shoved a crutch into Plaintiff’s
genitals.
Knowing Plaintiff is openly gay, the big correctional officer began playing with
Plaintiff’s hair and talking as though he also was gay. The officer said, “I always wanted to
be a hair dresser,” as he tied Plaintiff’s hair in knots. Plaintiff and his cellmate then were
“pranced” through the yard in their boxers in the cold. They went down a staircase, and at
the bottom, the big officer said to Plaintiff, “I’m going to take each of your fingers, one by
one, and break them.” The big officer showed another officer how to do it by bending and
smashing Plaintiff’s fingers. His fingers were not broken, but he experienced severe pain.
Plaintiff’s cellmate went into the unit manger’s office, and Plaintiff stood outside the
office with two correctional officers. The big officer pinched pressure points on Plaintiff’s
right arm, and the other officer then did the same thing to Plaintiff’s left side.
The big officer told Plaintiff not to go to Medical again and not to ask for anything
again. Plaintiff agreed not to report the officer. When Plaintiff’s cellmate came out of the
office, Plaintiff entered it. Plaintiff was asked about what had happened, but he said
2
“Nothing.” Plaintiff claims he was scared for his life. After this incident, he was separated
from his cellmate and allegedly was been denied grievances and Requests to Staff to exhaust
his administrative remedies.
Defendants Unknown Correctional Officers 1-4 and Chief of Security Peterson
On July 24, 2015, the court directed Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants
Unknown Correctional Officers 1-4 and Chief of Security Peterson should not be dismissed
for Plaintiff’s failure to serve them within 120 days after filing the complaint, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (Dkt. 39). Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s order,
Defendants Unknown Correctional Officers 1-4 and Chief of Security Peterson are dismissed
without prejudice from this action.
Defendants Anita Trammell and Robert Patton
Defendants Anita Trammell and Robert Patton have filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt.
34). They assert, among other things, that Plaintiff has failed to allege their personal
participation in a constitutional violation. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.
In assessing a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the factual allegations as true
and consider them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp,,
653 F.3d 1281, 1285–86 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098
(10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1574 (2012). A request for dismissal pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) requires the court to determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although the court is required to exercise a liberal interpretation of Plaintiff’s
pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the court need not assume the role of
advocate for Plaintiff, and he must present more than conclusory allegations to survive a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
3
1991). “[C]onclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to
state a claim upon which relief can be based.” Id. (citing cases). “[A] pro se plaintiff
requires no special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he
must provide such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which
relief can be granted.” Id.
“Personal participation is an essential allegation in a § 1983 claim.” Bennett v. Passic,
545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted). See also Mee v. Ortega, 967
F.2d 423, 430-31 (10th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff must show that a defendant personally
participated in the alleged civil rights violation. Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441
(10th Cir. 1996). Supervisory status is not sufficient to support liability under § 1983. Id.
See also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).
Here, the court finds the complaint only states that Defendant Trammell is a prison
official (Dkt. 1 at 2), and Defendant Patton is the “DOC Director-CEO” (Dkt. 1 at 1).
Plaintiff has not alleged how these defendants personally participated in the alleged
constitutional violations. Therefore, Defendants Trammell and Patton must be dismissed
from this action.
ACCORDINGLY, Defendants Unknown Correctional Officers 1-4 and Chief of
Security Peterson are dismissed without prejudice from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to
serve them within 120 days after filing the complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Defendants Anita Trammell and Robert Patton’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 34) is granted for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
and this action is dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of March 2016.
4
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?