Rudd v. Colorado Springs Police Dept. et al

Filing 37

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 34 Plaintiff's Letter/Motion for Order to Add CSPD on the Suit. Plaintiff shall submit future requests for relief in the form of a motion rather than in the form of a letter, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/27/09.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv-02379-PAB-MJW PATRICIA S. RUDD, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT KNOLLHOFF 1129 P, et al., Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff's letter/motion in which she asks that the CSPD (Colorado Springs Police Department) "be added on the suit" (Docket No. 34) is denied without prejudice. If plaintiff wishes to amend her Amended Complaint, she must submit a proposed Second Amended Complaint along with her motion to amend. Plaintiff is reminded that as stated by Magistrate Judge Boland in an Order filed February 24, 2009 (Docket No. 14), "municipalities and municipal entities are not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely because their employees inflict injury on a plaintiff. Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 426 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Hinton v. City of Elwood, Kan., 997 F.2d 774, 782 (10th Cir. 1993). To establish liability, a plaintiff must show that a policy or custom exists and that there is a direct causal link between the policy or custom and the injury alleged. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). Ms. Rudd cannot state a claim for relief under § 1983 merely by pointing to isolated incidents. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 694." (Docket No. 14 at 2). It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff shall submit any future requests for relief in the form of a motion filed in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado rather than in the form of a letter. Date: May 27, 2009