Cosgray v. Eddy County Detention Center

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DAVID W. COSGRAY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 24-cv-0540-MV-GJF
EDDY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff David Cosgray’s Amended Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaint (Doc. 5) (Complaint). 	Plaintiff is incarcerated, pro se, and proceeding in forma
pauperis. He alleges that his former prison was unsafe due to staffing shortages. Having reviewed
the matter sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court will dismiss the Complaint but grant
leave to amend.
I. 	Background1
Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at the Eddy County Detention Center (ECDC) in
Carlsbad, New Mexico. See Doc. 5 at 1. In the instant Complaint, he alleges that prison officials
risked his personal safety due to staffing shortages. Id. at 2-3. The Complaint does not provide
further details or specify whether Plaintiff suffered any attack.
Construed liberally, the Complaint raises a claim for deliberate indifference to health/safety
under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks $50,000 in damages from one
Defendant: ECDC. See Doc. 5 at 1, 4. Plaintiff obtained leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
1 The background facts are taken from the allegations in the Amended Complaint (Doc. 5), which the Court
accepts as true for the purpose of this ruling.
Case 2:24-cv-00540-MV-GJF Document 29 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 5

2
paid the initial partial filing fee. See Docs. 17, 18. The matter is therefore ready for initial review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. 	Standards Governing Initial Review
Section 1915(e) of Title 28 requires the Court to conduct a sua sponte review of all in forma
pauperis complaints. The Court must dismiss any inmate complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court may also
dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6) if “it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could
not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing [plaintiff] an opportunity to amend [the] complaint
would be futile.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotations omitted). The
plaintiff must frame a complaint that contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Because Plaintiff is pro se, his “pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. While pro
se pleadings are judged by the same legal standards as others, the Court can overlook the “failure
to cite proper legal authority, … confusion of various legal theories, …, or … unfamiliarity with
pleading requirements.” Id. Moreover, if a pro se inmate complaint fails to state a claim on initial
screening, courts should generally grant leave to amend unless amendment would be futile. Id.
III. 	Discussion
Plaintiff’s claims are analyzed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is the “remedial vehicle for
Case 2:24-cv-00540-MV-GJF Document 29 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 5

3
raising claims based on the violation of constitutional rights.” Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151,
1161 n.9 (10th Cir. 2016). “A cause of action under section 1983 requires the deprivation of a civil
right by a ‘person’ acting under color of state law.” 	McLaughlin v. Bd. of Trustees, 215 F.3d 1168,
1172 (10th Cir. 2000). 	The plaintiff must allege that each government official, through the
official’s own individual actions, has personally violated the Constitution. See Trask v. Franco,
446 F.3d 1036, 1046 (10th Cir. 1998). There must also be a connection between the official conduct
and the constitutional violation. See Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008);
Trask, 446 F.3d at 1046.
Applying these standards, the Complaint does not state a cognizable claim. The only named
Defendant is ECDC. However, detention centers are not considered “persons” subject to suit under
§ 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 71 (1989) (neither state nor
state agency is a “person” that can be sued under § 1983); Buchanan v. Okla., 398 F. App’x 339,
342 (10th Cir. 2010) (“State-operated detention facilities ... are not ‘persons’ ... under § 1983”);
White v. Utah, 5 F. App’x 852, 853 (10th Cir. 2001) (“a detention facility is not a person or legally
created entity capable of being sued” under § 1983). The Complaint against ECDC must therefore
be dismissed for failure to state a § 1983 claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Rule 12(b)(6).
Pro se prisoners are ordinarily given an opportunity to “remedy defects potentially
attributable to their ignorance of federal law.” Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 126 (10th
Cir. 1990). 	Plaintiff may therefore file a single, amended complaint within ninety (90) days of
entry of this ruling. 	The amendment must comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and set forth a short, plain statement of the grounds for relief. Plaintiff should include
all claims and factual allegations in the single amendment, rather than filing supplemental letters.
Case 2:24-cv-00540-MV-GJF Document 29 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 5

4
The amendment must also “make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom, to
provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claim against him or her.” Robbins
v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2008). See also Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210,
1225-26 (10th Cir. 2013) (“collective allegations” regarding the alleged wrongdoing do not state a
viable § 1983 claim).
Plaintiff is reminded that, to state a deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth
Amendment, the amendment must show: “(1) ‘that the conditions of his incarceration present an
objective substantial risk of serious harm’ and (2) ‘prison officials had subjective knowledge of the
risk of harm.” 	Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195, 1214 (10th Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted).
Plaintiff should provide details regarding why he believed his safety was at risk based on the
staffing shortages, such as his housing arrangements and whether other inmates caused harm or
threatened to cause harm. The amendment must also include “evidence of [each individual] prison
official’s culpable state of mind.” Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 751 (10th Cir. 2005). In other words,
the amendment “must establish that defendant(s) knew he faced a substantial risk of harm and
disregarded that risk, by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Kikumura v. Osagie, 461
F.3d 1269, 1293 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). Finally, if the amendment names entity-
defendants or prison supervisors who were not directly involved in the wrongdoing, the allegations
must show such defendant(s) promulgated a policy or custom that caused the constitutional
violation. 	See Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1164 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Supervisory liability
allows a plaintiff to impose liability upon a defendant-supervisor who creates, promulgates, [or]
implements a policy which ... causes” a constitutional violation). If Plaintiff fails to timely amend
or files another pleading that fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim, the Court may dismiss this
Case 2:24-cv-00540-MV-GJF Document 29 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 5

5
case without further notice.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 5) is
DISMISSED without prejudice; and Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within ninety (90)
days of entry of this Order.
__________________________________
HONORABLE MARTHA VÁZQUEZ
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00540-MV-GJF Document 29 Filed 11/19/25 Page 5 of 5