Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180418_0000586.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:38:30+00:00

Document:
TREGO COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
This pro se civil rights complaint was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a former pre-trial detainee of the Trego County Jail. Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis and alleges that constitutional violations occurred during his pre-trial confinement. He sues unnamed employees of the Trego County Jail and the Trego County Sheriff's Department and seeks $1.5 million dollars, payment of his medical bills, and compensation for missed work.
Plaintiff initially filed suit against the Trego County Jail. (Doc. 1). Because a jail is not a person subject to suit under § 1983, however, the court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint that names the person or persons whose acts or omissions violated his federal rights and provides detailed information specifying how and when each violation occurred, and the injury caused. (Doc. 5). In response, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against unnamed employees of the Trego County Jail and the Trego County Sheriff's Department. (Doc. 6). Because the complaint named no individual defendants, the court directed preparation of a Martinez report.
Plaintiff alleges that he had “major surgery” on his leg shortly before being arrested and confined to the Trego County Jail (after an initial brief confinement at the Saline County Jail), where he alleges that he was held in an unsanitary cell and was provided no cleaning supplies.
In Count I, plaintiff claims that despite his request, jail officials refused to allow him to see a doctor or go to an emergency room for treatment of his leg, and refused to provide him with bandages or antibiotic ointment until his wound “burst” and he was “deathly ill”. Plaintiff states that he later tested positive for MRSA, which required IV antibiotic treatments and additional surgery and caused him to miss work.
In Count II, plaintiff alleges that he wrote a letter to his personal physician which jail officials failed to send and instead placed the letter with plaintiff's personal property.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)- (2).
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In addition, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910, 913 (10th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, ” dismissal is appropriate. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained “that, 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). 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) (citation omitted).

References: § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.