Evans v. Long et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUDSON TODD EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 23-CV-368-JFH-GLJ
CHRIS BRYANT, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Judson Todd Evans (“Evans”) is a pro se pretrial detainee who is incarcerated in
the Carter County Detention Center (“CCDC”) in Ardmore, Oklahoma. He filed this civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief for alleged constitutional violations at his
facility. Dkt. No 1. The defendants are Chris Bryant, Carter County Sheriff; Devra Atwood, Jail
Administrator; Turnkey Health; and Josephine LNU, Turnkey Nurse Practitioner. Id. at 3-4.
Evans alleges in Claim One of the complaint that on October 13, 2023, and on ten other
dates, Defendant Sheriff Bryant “failed to exercise a proper oversight and procedural authority
over the facility’s medical services department,” resulting in Evans’ “likely irreversible” physical
and mental damages. Id. at 5. In Claim Two, Evans claims that on October 13, 2023, and on five
other occasions, Defendant Atwood failed to oversee the county jail’s medical department,
resulting in physical and mental damages to Evans. Id.
Evans asserts in Claim Three that on October 13, 2023 and on 12 other occasions,
Defendant Nurse Josephine LNU repeatedly ignored his need to see a doctor to prescribe pain
medication. The nurse also denied Evans the prescriptions he had from his doctor. Id. at 6. Evans
further complains that on the above occasions, he was denied adequate medical care for his
unspecified conditions by being advised, “We don’t give you those medications.” Id.
6:23-cv-00368-JFH-GLJ Document 8 Filed in ED/OK on 11/20/23 Page 1 of 5

2
After review of the complaint, the Court finds Evans must file an amended civil rights
complaint on the Court’s form, as set forth below.
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)
6:23-cv-00368-JFH-GLJ Document 8 Filed in ED/OK on 11/20/23 Page 2 of 5

3
(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
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).
The Court finds Evans’ complaint is vague and conclusory, and it fails to set forth the
specific dates of each the alleged event. The complaint also fails to explain what type of medical
conditions have not been properly addressed.
6:23-cv-00368-JFH-GLJ Document 8 Filed in ED/OK on 11/20/23 Page 3 of 5

4
Amended Complaint
Within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order, Evans 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). Evans also is responsible for providing sufficient information for service of
process. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis and pro se had responsibility to provide correct names and proper addresses for service
of process).
The amended complaint must include a short and plain statement of when and how each
named defendant violated Evans’ constitutional rights and that Evans is entitled to relief from each
named defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Evans 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. Evans must go further and state how
the named defendant’s personal participation violated his constitutional rights. 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).
6:23-cv-00368-JFH-GLJ Document 8 Filed in ED/OK on 11/20/23 Page 4 of 5

5
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. 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 Evans a form for filing an amended
complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Evans is directed to file within twenty-one (21) days
an amended complaint on this Court’s form, as directed in this Order. The Court Clerk is directed
to send Evans a copy of the form for filing an amended civil rights complaint in this Court. Failure
to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice.
Dated this 20th day of November 2023.
____________________________________
JOHN F. HEIL, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:23-cv-00368-JFH-GLJ Document 8 Filed in ED/OK on 11/20/23 Page 5 of 5