Knaubert v. Last Forced Medication Committee
Last week, July 8th, this Order was issued by Senior District Judge Stephen M. McNamee, of the United States District Court, for the District of Arizona, in the case of:
On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Knaubert, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In his five-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Mertz, a mental health psych associate at SMU-1 and Eyman Complex-Cook; and John Does 1 through 9, all listed as “pychrist (sic) mental health” or “mental health psychrist (sic)” at SMU-1. Plaintiff seeks damages.
In Count One, Plaintiff asserts a claim of retaliation and alleges the following facts: Defendant Mertz knew Plaintiff “was there for admin p[u]rpose and not for mental health.” Mertz was apparently caught falsifying paperwork and was “removed from his case load.” Mertz said, “I will put you in for forced medication” and refused to say on what grounds. Mertz was almost fired and given a second chance before “putting in for forced medication meds turned [Plaintiff] into a zombie.” Plaintiff was “there” until housing could be found for him. Plaintiff’s injuries consist of a delay of his filings in state courts, he was “put into binds,” and costs of over $100.00.
In Count Three, Plaintiff asserts a medical care claim and alleges the following: Plaintiff was given medication “for a problem that does not exist.” It turned Plaintiff into a zombie and he could barely think for himself.
Responding to Count One, Judge McNamee writes:
The only mention of Mertz is in Count One, which Plaintiff designates as a retaliation claim. However, it is unclear how Mertz or anyone else retaliated against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Mertz knew Plaintiff “was there for admin p[u]rpose and not for mental health,” but Plaintiff does not explain what this means. Plaintiff alleges that Mertz was “caught for false paperwork lying had him removed from his case load,” but these vague allegations are also unclear. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Mertz said, “I will put you in for forced medication” and that Mertz was almost fired and given a second chance before “putting in for forced medication meds turned [Plaintiff] into a zombie.”
It appears that Plaintiff may be asserting that he reported Mertz for some alleged misconduct and that Mertz retaliated by recommending that Plaintiff receive medications by force, but none of that is clear from the allegations. As noted, conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. Nor will the Court supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Id. Accordingly, Defendant Mertz and Count One will be dismissed.
Because Plaintiff has failed to connect a properly named Defendant with any alleged violation of his constitutional rights, his First Amended Complaint will be dismissed.
The Court dismissed the rest for failing to state a claim but granted leave to amend. If it’s not corrected it could count as a strike against him for future pleadings:
if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).