Lacosse v. McIntosh County Jail et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White: Defendant McIntosh County Jail is DISMISSED from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint on the Court's form due 12/9/2016.(acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUSTIN TODD LACOSSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
McINTOSH COUNTY JAIL and
DEPUTY MONICA SMITH,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 16-487-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Justin Todd Lacosse, a pro se prisoner who is incarcerated in the Muskogee
County Jail, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief for alleged Eighth
Amendment violations during his incarceration at the McIntosh County Jail in Eufala,
Oklahoma. The defendants are the McIntosh County Jail and Deputy Monica Smith, the Jail
Administrator.
Plaintiff alleges that on or about March 8, 2016, he was sitting at a table in “F” Pod,
when he was punched from behind by a Department of Corrections inmate. (Dkt. 1 at 2).
The attack continued until Jailers Gerald Young and Richard Robinson broke it up and took
Plaintiff to Medical Isolation. Id. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were a cut nose, a bump on the
right side of his head, and scratches on his right side. Id. at 4.
Screening/Dismissal Standards
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claim and dismiss any claim
which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The pleading standard for all civil actions was articulated in Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009). 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 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 wellpleaded 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 555-56. “So, when the
allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief,” the
cause of action should be dismissed. Id. at 558. The Court applies the same standard of
review for dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) that is employed for Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214,
1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007).
A pro se plaintiff’s complaint must be broadly construed under this standard.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The generous construction to be given to 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). Notwithstanding a pro
se plaintiff’s various mistakes or misunderstandings of legal doctrines or procedural
requirements, “if a court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which
the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so . . . .” Id. 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, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
Defendant McIntosh County Jail
Plaintiff has named the McIntosh County Jail as a defendant. He has not, however,
made specific factual claims against the Jail and has not demonstrated why this governmental
sub-unit is a suable entity. The capacity of an entity to be sued is determined by the law of
the state in which the federal district court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Under
2

Oklahoma law, “any person, corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association [has]
capacity to . . . be sued in this state.” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2017(B). While the Oklahoma
courts have not addressed in a published opinion the issue of whether a jail or prison has
capacity to be sued, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has held in an unpublished opinion
that “the Creek County Criminal Justice Center is not a suable entity under § 1983.” Hinton
v. Dennis, No. 09-5130, 362 Fed. Appx. 904, 907, 2010 WL 257286, at *3, (10th Cir. Jan.
25, 2010) (citing Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444 (10th Cir. 1985)). Therefore,
Defendant McIntosh County Jail is DISMISSED from this pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Defendant Deputy Monica Smith
The second defendant in this action is Deputy Monica Smith, the McIntosh County
Jail Administrator. Plaintiff, however, has made no factual allegations against Ms. Smith.
“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). Plaintiff has failed to such a showing at
this stage of the litigation.
Medical Claims
In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff alleges he was not provided timely medical
treatment for his injuries, including prescriptions medications. (Dkt. 1 at 6). Again, he has
not alleged that an individual defendant personally participated in these alleged constitutional
violations.
Amended Complaint
The Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient. Therefore, he is granted leave
to file an amended complaint concerning the alleged incident within twenty (20) days.
3

Because Defendant McIntosh County Jail is dismissed by this Opinion and Order, the
amended complaint may not name the McIntosh County Jail as a defendant, but Plaintiff may
name additional defendants if appropriate.
The amended complaint must include all allegations and supporting material to be
considered by the Court, and it may not reference or attempt to incorporate material from
Plaintiff’s original complaint. See Local Rule 9.2(c). As discussed above, claims against
individual defendants must show the defendants personally participated in the alleged
constitutional violations. The Court Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a form for filing an
amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint as directed will result in dismissal
of this action without prejudice.
ACCORDINGLY, Defendant McIntosh County Jail is DISMISSED from this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. The Court Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the form for filing an amended
complaint in this Court. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint on the Court’s
form within twenty (20) days. Failure to comply with this Opinion and Order will result in
dismissal of this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of November 2016.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2016.
J4h4i0

4