Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180420_0000605.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:36:37+00:00

Document:
RENO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
This matter is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
To avoid a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must set out factual allegations that “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The court accepts the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. However, “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a [plausible] claim of entitlement to relief, ” the matter should be dismissed. Id. at 558. A court need not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rather, “to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed [the plaintiff]; and what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Reno County Correctional Facility. He alleges that in March 2018, a single item of his legal mail was opened outside his presence and was delivered to him five days after its postmark. Plaintiff states that he reported this to a sergeant at the facility who acknowledged that it was an error and agreed to look into the circumstances.
Plaintiff seeks the dismissal of pending criminal charges, relief from sentences imposed in two criminal cases, unspecified damages, and costs.
The Court has considered the complaint and has identified certain deficiencies.
First, to establish a cause of action under § 1983, plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 650 (1980). “Personal participation is an essential allegation in a § 1983 claim.” Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). Here, plaintiff has not named a proper party because he does not identify an individual defendant; he names only the Sheriff's Department and the Reno County Correctional Facility. Neither of these entities is a suable entity in an action under § 1983.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983