Folsom v. Knutson, 702 F. App'x 781

Folsom, a pro se Oklahoma state prisoner, sued multiple prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and sought nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages.
Allegations included: non-physical sexual harassment by JCCC officer Dan Davis (one shower incident); Grice allegedly filed false misconduct charges in retaliation; denial or misinformation about law-library/forms at JCCC and OSR hindering grievances; denial of medical/psychiatric care and unsafe transfer at OSR; and alleged physical and verbal abuse by several LCC staff on July 19, 2013 (vague, conclusory claims).
Many allegations were conclusory, lacked supporting factual detail, or consisted of legal citations without connecting facts.
The magistrate judge issued a 56‑page Report & Recommendation; the district court adopted it and dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, applied Eleventh Amendment immunity to official-capacity money‑damage claims, and addressed qualified immunity issues.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, construes pro se pleadings liberally but does not act as advocate, and affirmed dismissal for the reasons in the R&R.
The court denied Folsom leave to proceed IFP on appeal, found the appeal frivolous, assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and ordered payment of filing fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether one incident of non‑physical sexual comments by Davis states an Eighth Amendment claim	Davis’s comments amounted to sexual harassment and cruel and unusual punishment	Verbal/non‑physical harassment is insufficient for Eighth Amendment relief	Dismissed — verbal harassment alone not a sufficient Eighth Amendment violation (bar)
Whether Warden Dowling can be held liable for supervisory/ratification conduct	Dowling knew of harassment/retaliation and failed to stop it	No factual allegations showing Dowling’s personal participation or prior knowledge	Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead Dowling’s personal participation plausibly
Whether denial/misinformation about law‑library/forms and returned grievances deprived access to courts or prevented exhaustion	Denial of forms/library impeded grievances and access to courts	No specific facts showing actual injury to nonfrivolous claim or that defendants’ acts caused denial	Dismissed — no facts showing impairment of an actual legal claim or causal link (Lewis standard)
Whether allegations of physical abuse and failure to intervene at LCC state an excessive‑force Eighth Amendment claim	Defendants beat or allowed beating; failed to intervene	Pleadings lack factual detail about force, injuries, or circumstances	Dismissed — conclusory allegations insufficient; no plausible showing of excessive force under Hudson factors

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 requires state‑action and constitutional violation)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment medical/safety claims)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (factors for excessive‑force Eighth Amendment claims)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (prisoner must show actual injury to nonfrivolous claim to prove denial of access to courts)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but conclusory allegations insufficient)
Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1998) (verbal harassment insufficient for Eighth Amendment claim)
Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir. 1992) (verbal threats/harassment excluded from cruel and unusual punishment inquiry)
Dodd v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (must plausibly plead each defendant’s personal participation)
Ellis v. Univ. of Kan. Med. Ctr., 163 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 1998) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits for money damages against state agencies and officials in official capacity)