United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE IN PART AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT IN PART
E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cody Ray Caskey, is an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary (SDSP) in Sioux Falls. He filed a pro se civil
rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. The
court screened Caskey's complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A and granted him leave to amend his complaint. Docket 8.
Caskey now moves to amend his Complaint and add additional
defendants. The court has now screened Caskey's proposed
amended complaint (Docket 10) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The court dismisses his complaint in part and directs service
alleges that he has “taken Testosterone Blockers
(spironolactone 25 mg) and estrogen pills (Prem[a]rin
1.25)” since he was fourteen years old. Docket 10 at 1.
Caskey alleges he began by taking his mother's estrogen
pills. Id. And when he was old enough, he began
ordering medications online under either his female alias,
Kasey Rene, or his biological name, Cody Caskey. Caskey
alleges that he medicated himself for years. Id.
This protocol helped him feel comfortable in his body.
alleges that he has now been off hormones for five years, and
that he suffers severe suicidal tendencies and severe
headaches. Id. Caskey repeatedly reported these
symptoms to Medical. Id.
alleges that his gender dysphoria is well documented.
Id. at 2. But it was only recently acknowledged and
has not yet been treated. Id. Caskey alleges that
the SDSP makes no attempt to treat his gender dysphoria and
that this lack of treatment causes his suicidal tendencies,
including his suicide attempts. Id.
claims that Dr. Adams initially denied Caskey
“continuation of hormonal therapy because I was unable
to provide medical records[.]” Id. at 3.
Caskey alleges that Dr. Adams is aware of the gender
dysphoria and symptoms, but Dr. Adams does nothing.
Id. After this lawsuit was filed, Dr. Adams
recommended that Caskey see an endocrinologist. Id.
The Department of Health denied the request. Id. at
1. And now the request is being reviewed by the Medical
Director. Id. Caskey alleges that this is only an
attempt by defendants to buy time. Id.
alleges that the Department of Health “is responsible
for the actions of all their staff, including Dr. Adams and
… the medical director[.]” Id. at 3.
Additionally the Department of Health denied Caskey an
appointment with an endocrinologist for his gender dysphoria.
alleges that “Warden Dooley has retaliated against him
because of [Warden Dooley's] relationship with Dennis
Lauseng, a former captain for SDSP, ” who Caskey
previously sued. Id. at 2. And Caskey alleges that
Warden Dooley is “responsible for his staff and their
actions against [Caskey].” Id. at 3. Caskey
alleges that Warden Dooley denied Caskey's grievances
regarding his hormone therapy and denied Caskey an
appointment with an endocrinologist. Id.
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, malicious, or fail ...