United States District Court, D. Idaho
JASON A. WAHL, Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE, Corrections Officer at Idaho State Correctional Institution, Defendant.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE
Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge
Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff Jason A.
Wahl's Complaint as a result of Plaintiff's status as
an inmate and in forma pauperis request. The Court now
reviews the Complaint to determine whether it should be
summarily dismissed in whole or in part under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915 and 1915A. Having reviewed the record, and
otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the
following Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint if Plaintiff intends to proceed.
Court must review complaints filed by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity, as well as complaints
filed in forma pauperis, to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate. The Court must dismiss a complaint
or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious
claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to
state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual
assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient
for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. In other
words, although Rule 8 “does not require detailed
factual allegations, ... it demands more than an unadorned,
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts
pleaded are “merely consistent with a defendant's
liability, ” or if there is an “obvious
alternative explanation” that would not result in
liability, the complaint has not stated a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face. Id. at 678, 682
(internal quotation marks omitted).
is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of
Correction, currently incarcerated at Idaho State
Correctional Center. At the time relevant to the events
described in the Complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the
Idaho State Correctional Institution.
September 2017, Plaintiff was placed in segregation after a
weapon was found in his cell. An unidentified correctional
officer, Defendant John Doe, escorted Plaintiff to
segregation; Plaintiff was in restraints at the time.
Defendant had Plaintiff walk to the back wall of the cell
while Defendant placed a mattress in Plaintiff's cell, in
the middle of the floor. Defendant then left Plaintiff's
cell and ordered the door secured. Compl., Dkt. 1,
policy requires that correctional officers “immediately
remove the restraints” once an inmate is secured in his
cell. Defendant failed to do so. Plaintiff tried to get
Defendant's attention to remove the restraints, but
Defendant had already walked away. Id. Soon after,
Defendant left the facility.
minutes, the lights went out. Plaintiff tried to make his way
to his bunk, but he tripped over the mattress Defendant had
left in the cell. Plaintiff fell onto the concrete floor,
sustaining a serious head injury. Id. at 1-2.
alleges that Defendant's conduct violated the United
States Constitution. He seeks damages and declaratory relief.
has not alleged sufficient facts to proceed with the
Complaint. The Court will, however, grant Plaintiff 28 days
to amend the Complaint. Any amended ...