Wilson v. Oklahoma City City of et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 2/16/2012. (mb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID WILSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-12-147-D

ORDER
Plaintiff, who appears pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a Complaint purporting to seek
relief against the defendants on a number of grounds. As required by 28 U. S. C. § 1915, the Court
has reviewed the allegations in the Complaint as required by the statute, which provides in pertinent
part:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that–
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal–
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U. S. C. § 1915(e)(2). When reviewing the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must
construe the allegations liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Yang v. Archuleta,
525 F. 3d 925, 927 n. 1 (10th Cir. 2008). The Court is not, however, required to “supply additional
factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s
behalf.” Smith v. United States, 561 F. 3d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted).
Based on the foregoing rules, the Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as it fails to state a claim for relief. Although the factual contentions are vague,
Plaintiff states that relief is sought for unspecified conduct which allegedly violates 42 U. S. C.
§§1983, 1985, and 1986. He also lists several other federal statutes in the Complaint, but does not
allege facts to show how these statutes were violated by any defendant.
To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to
show a claim for relief is plausible. See Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F. 3d 1174, 1177
(10th Cir. 2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007).1 The mere
metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded
claims is insufficient to satisfy the plausibility requirement; the Complaint must give the Court
reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for his
claims. Id.
The Complaint in this case fails to satisfy these requirements. Furthermore, it fails to
identify the conduct on which Plaintiff’s claims are allegedly based, does not identify the defendant
who allegedly committed the purported wrongful conduct, and thus fails to provide the defendants
with “fair notice as to the basis of the claims” asserted. Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F. 3d 1242, 1250
(10th Cir. 2008). As a result, dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief is warranted. Id.
Furthermore, the Court concludes it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to amend in an effort
to cure these deficiencies. The records of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma reflect that Plaintiff has repeatedly filed Complaints asserting vague and conclusory
allegations lacking factual support and failing to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8, resulting in dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and/or § 1915(e)(2)(B). See,
1

Although Ridge at Red Hawk and Twombly address dismissal pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P 12(b)(6) rather than
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the standards governing the Court’s review of the sufficiency of a Complaint are the same under
both provisions. See Chavez v. Schwartz, 2012 WL 130708, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished opinion).

2

e.g., Wilson v. City of Oklahoma City, et al., CIV-11-1029-F, September 20, 2011 Order [Doc. No.
4]; Wilson v. City of Oklahoma City, et al., CIV-10-1094-M, October 20, 2010 Order [Doc. No. 7];
Wilson v. City of Oklahoma City, et al., CIV-10-1043-R, September 24, 2010 Order [Doc. No. 4].2
In fact, the vague allegations in the Complaint are similar to those asserted in a recent case
filed by Plaintiff, David Wilson v. City of Oklahoma City, et al., CIV-11-1131-C, which was
dismissed pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim for relief. See
October 20, 2011 Order, CIV-11-1131-C [Doc. No. 6]. Plaintiff appealed that decision, and the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding “dismissal is proper because Mr. Wilson cannot
prevail on the facts he has alleged and because an opportunity to amend would be futile.” Wilson
v. City of Oklahoma City, 2012 WL 130713, at *1 (10th Cir. Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished opinion).
A comparison of the allegations in the Complaint rejected by the Tenth Circuit in that case
with those asserted in the instant case confirms that dismissal is also appropriate here, as the instant
Complaint is less detailed and contains fewer factual contentions than were asserted in the
Complaint filed in CIV-11-1131-C. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2012.

2

The cited cases are not a complete list of all actions filed by Plaintiff, but are representative examples of the
more than ten cases he has filed since 2010.

3