United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING
E. SCHREIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Donald Loren Anderson, is an inmate at the Mike Durfee State
Prison in Springfield, South Dakota. Anderson filed a pro se
civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and paid his
filing fee. Docket 1; Docket 3; Docket 5. The court has now
screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and for
the reasons stated below, the court dismisses Anderson's
complaint in part and directs service in part.
complaint generally concerns his disability and the
prison's failure to accommodate that disability. Docket
1. He alleges that he uses hearing aids, that he is in a
wheelchair, and that he has medical issues with his hands
that cause him pain. Id.
Anderson arrived at the prison his hearing aids started
malfunctioning. Id. at 2. When he asked prison
officials for help, they told him to mail his hearing aids
out of the prison because they did not want to be responsible
for them. Id. He also asked prison officials for a
release of information form in order to get evidence from the
veteran's association, the suppliers of the hearing aids.
Id. This request was denied. Id.
alleges that his cell is too small, given his disability and
the fact that he shares the cell with another inmate who is
also in a wheelchair. Id. at 2-3. The door is too
narrow, and Anderson has injured himself by hitting it while
going through in his wheelchair. Id. at 2. He also
has medical issues with his hands that make it very painful
to maneuver his wheelchair in the cramped cell. Id.
generally alleges that the prison is not built properly to
accommodate his disability. Id. at 1. He also
alleges that the state penitentiary is currently being
remodeled but not in compliance with the ADA. Id.
This includes the medical building, the housing units, and
the law library. Id.
also alleges a number of ways in which those in wheelchairs
are discriminated against in the prison. He alleges that
inmates in wheelchairs are allowed only one hour of
recreation time a week, if they are allowed any at all.
Id. at 4. He alleges that they are not allowed to
drop off their laundry. Id. He also complains
generally that he is forced to pay for medical treatment,
even though he is a disabled veteran. Id.
19, 2017, Anderson filed this complaint, seeking injunctive
relief as well as damages for his injuries. Id. at
3. He requests that the prison be ordered to fully comply
with the ADA. Id. Anderson paid a portion of his
filing fee on June 17, 2017, and the remainder on June 19.
Docket 3; Docket 5.
court must accept the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the non-moving party. Schriener v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014). Civil rights
and pro se complaints must be liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation
omitted); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835,
839 (8th Cir. 2004). Even with this construction, “a
pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its
conclusions.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d
1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); Ellis v. City of
Minneapolis, 518 F. App'x 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2013).
Civil rights complaints cannot be merely conclusory.
Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993);
Parker v. Porter, 221 F. App'x 481, 482 (8th
complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations .
. . [but] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “If a plaintiff cannot make the
requisite showing, dismissal is appropriate.”
Abdullah v. Minnesota, 261 F. App'x 926, 927
(8th Cir. 2008); Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657,
663 (8th Cir. 1985). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court
must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss them if they are
“(1) frivolous, ...