United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ROBERT A. BLAZER, Plaintiff,
ROBERT DOOLEY, Warden, in his individual and official capacity; DIRECTOR OF PRISON INDUSTRIES, Director of Prison Industries at Mike Durfee State Prison, individual and official capacity; DENNY KAEMINGK, Secretary of Corrections, in his individual and official capacity; and VERNON ISHMAEL, Supervisor at Housing Project at Mike Durfee State Prison, in his individual and official capacity; Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL OR AMEND COMPLAINT
E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Robert A. Blazer, was formerly an inmate at the Mike Durfee
State Prison (MDSP) in Springfield, South Dakota. While still
incarcerated at MDSP, he filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docket 1) and moved to appoint
counsel or amend his complaint (Docket 19). The court has now
screened Mr. Blazer's complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A and dismisses Mr. Blazer's complaint.
complaint generally concerns alleged violations of his
federal constitutional and statutory rights at the MDSP. The
facts as Blazer alleged are as follows:
worked at the Housing Project at MDSP. Docket 1 at 4. He fell
off a faulty, non-OSHA approved ladder and was injured.
Id. The fall re-aggravated a previous shoulder and
back injury and caused neck pain, headaches, and dizzy
doctor and nurse prescribed different, conflicting treatment
regarding a cane. Id. at 5. A nurse yelled at Blazer
in front of other inmates. A nurse also carried out the
doctor's duties. A nurse wrote Blazer up. As a result of
this treatment, Blazer suffered emotional trauma and
Coordinator Archambeau and Unit Manager Laine Schryvers
disregarded, lost, or handed back Blazer's kites and
complaints about the unprofessionalism of the doctor and
nurse at MDSP. Id. at 6. Unit Coordinator
Archambeau's wife is a nurse at the MDSP and this
relationship created a conflict of interest. Id.
Blazer was not allowed to complete the full grievance process
and the process extended past thirty days. Id.
Blazer's grievances were not advanced to the warden.
Blazer kited Warden Dooley and Secretary Kaemingk. As a
result of this treatment, Blazer suffered emotional trauma
and distress. 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 481, 482 (8th Cir.
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).
U.S.C. § 1915A requires the court to screen prisoner
complaints and dismiss them if they are “(1) frivolous,
malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” § 1915A(b).