Lindamood v. Jordan et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White: Defendant State of Oklahoma is dismissed without prejudice. Defendant United States of America is dismissed. Defendant Choctaw County Jail is dismissed. Within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint on this Court's form(acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JAMES KEVIN LINDAMOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUZANNE JORDAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 24-046-RAW-JAR

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff is a pro se state prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
who is incarcerated at John Lilley Correctional Center in Boley, Oklahoma. He filed this civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking monetary relief for alleged constitutional violations
at the Choctaw County Jail in Hugo, Oklahoma (Dkt. 1). The defendants are Suzanne Jordan,
Choctaw County Jail Administrator; Terry Park, Choctaw County Sheriff; the Choctaw County Jail;
the State of Oklahoma; and the United States of America.
I.

Plaintiff’s Claims
In Claim One of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges in an Eighth Amendment claim that in

November 2023, Defendant Suzanne Jordan failed to pick up his prescribed blood pressure
medication at the Hugo Clinic. In November 2023, Plaintiff allegedly had a stroke that resulted in
the loss of vision in his left eye. (Dkt. 1 at 5).
Plaintiff claims in Claim Two that from November 17 to December 12, 2023, he was denied
medical care when he repeatedly requested to see a doctor as he slowly lost vision in his left eye.
He contends his blindness could have been avoided if he had been provided care in time. Id.
In Claim Three, Plaintiff complains he was subjected to deliberate indifference with the
delayed treatment of his diagnosed conditions, and Defendant Jordan failed to get his prescribed
medication. He asserts he still experiences extreme headaches and blindness. Id. at 6.
Plaintiff again complains in Claim Four that the delayed or denied medical treatment at the
jail resulted in his loss of vision. Id.

After review of the complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff must file an amended civil rights
complaint on the Court’s form, as set forth below.
II.

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 claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 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 also 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 555-56.
“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). See also Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding that § 1915A
dismissals are reviewed under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard for stating a claim for relief).
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 given to the pro se litigant’s allegations, however, “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

2

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. A reviewing court need not accept “mere conclusions characterizing pleaded facts.”
Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990). “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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(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, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
III.

Improper Defendants
A.

Defendant State of Oklahoma

The Eleventh Amendment prevents Plaintiff from suing the State of Oklahoma without its
unequivocal consent, and this prohibition encompasses suits against state agencies. See Guttman
v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d 1101, 1110 (10th Cir. 2012) ( “Although a state may waive the sovereign
immunity granted to it under the Eleventh Amendment, we require a showing of unequivocal intent
to do so.”); Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 611 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir. 2010)
(noting that the Eleventh Amendment’s protection encompasses States and state agencies).
“Oklahoma has not waived sovereign immunity against § 1983 claims in federal district court.”
Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155, 1159 (10th Cir. 2006). See also Okla. Stat. tit. 51 § 152.1.
Therefore, the State of Oklahoma is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)
and 1915(e)(2)(B). See Wauford v. Richardson, 450 F. App’x 698, 699 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding
that claims dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment “should have been dismissed without
prejudice”).
B.

Defendant United States of America.

The United States of America also is an improper defendant. Section 1983 states in pertinent

3

part that:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added).
Because the United States of America is not a “person” under section 1983, it is not a proper
defendant in this lawsuit. Therefore, Defendant United States of America is dismissed from this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B), and it may not be named as a
defendant in the amended § 1983 complaint. .
C.

Defendant Choctaw County Jail

The Choctaw County Jail also is not a proper defendant. 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, 362 F. App’x 904, 907 (10th
Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (citing Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444 (10th Cir. 1985)). Therefore,
Defendant Choctaw 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.
IV.

Amended Complaint
Within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff must file an amended

complaint on this Court’s form. The amended complaint must set forth the full name of each person
he is suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, the names in the caption of the amended complaint
must be identical to those contained in the body of the amended complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 10(a). Plaintiff also is responsible for providing sufficient information for service of process. See
Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (pro se plaintiff was responsible for providing
correct names and proper addresses for service of process).

4

The amended complaint must include a short and plain statement of when and how each
named defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and that Plaintiff is entitled to relief from
each named defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff also shall identify a specific constitutional
basis for each claim. See id. He is admonished that simply alleging that a defendant is an employee
or supervisor of a state agency is inadequate to state a claim. Plaintiff must go further and state how
the named defendant’s personal participation violated his constitutional rights. The “denial of a
grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by the
plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983.” Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d
1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). The Court only will consider claims “based upon
the violation of a plaintiff’s personal rights, and not the rights of someone else.” Archuleta v.
McShan, 897 F.2d 495, 497 (10th Cir. 1990).
The Tenth Circuit has explained that when a § 1983 plaintiff includes a “government agency
and a number of government actors sued in their individual capacities,” then “it is particularly
important . . . that the complaint 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 against the state.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242,
1249-50 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). When a plaintiff instead uses “either the collective
term ‘Defendants’ or a list of defendants named individually but with no distinction as to what acts
are attributable to whom, it is impossible for any of these individuals to ascertain what particular
unconstitutional acts they are alleged to have committed.” Id. at 1250 (citation omitted).
An amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint and renders the original
complaint of no legal effect. See Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991); Gilles v.
United States, 906 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir. 1990). See also Local Civil Rule 9.2(c). The
amended complaint must include all claims and supporting material to be considered by the Court.
See Local Civil Rule 9.2(c). It must be complete in itself, including exhibits, and may not reference
or attempt to incorporate material from the original complaint or exhibits. Id. It may not include

5

defendants or claims that are dismissed by this Order. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a), the
amended complaint must be clearly legible, only one side of the paper may be used, and additional
sheets of paper shall have margins of no less than one (1) inch on the top, bottom, and sides. The
Court Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a form for filing an amended complaint.
ACCORDINGLY,
1.

Defendant State of Oklahoma is dismissed without prejudice.

2.

Defendant United States of America is dismissed.

3.

Defendant Choctaw County Jail is dismissed.

4.

Within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff must file an amended
complaint on this Court’s form.

5.

The Court Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this Court’s form for filing an
amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

6.

Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without
further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of May 2024.

______________________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6