Bingham v. Zavaras et al

Filing 115

ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion for Declaratory Judgment, F.R.C.P. Rule 57 113 is DENIED. By Judge David M. Ebel on 7/12/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00604-DME-CBS
MICHAEL WAYNE BINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, Executive Director, CDOC,
WARDEN TIMME, FCF,
LT. KOCHEVER,
LT. DIRECTO,
SGT. MARTIN,
SGT. STOGHILL,
JIM MOORE,
WARDEN MILYARD,
C/O CLINTON AULTMAN, and,
JANEEN LANE,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment,
F.R.C.P. Rule 57 (Doc. 113.)
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Michael Bingham filed this suit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging three claims. (Doc. 36.) All of the claims stem from events that
occurred in September and October of 2009, when Bingham was incarcerated at the Fremont
Correctional Facility of the Colorado Department of Corrections. According to Bingham, in mid
to late September of 2009, he informed Defendant Martin, the sergeant of Bingham’s cell house,
about assaults, extortions, and threats being committed in his cell house by the 211 gang.
Bingham claims that on October 4, 2009, “inmate Brasher assaulted” him, possibly in retaliation

for giving that information to Martin. Then, while subduing the two inmates, Defendant
Aultman, a correctional officer, sprayed Bingham in the eyes with OC, also known as pepper
spray. Finally, Bingham claims that he failed to receive medical care for the burns from the
pepper spray.
A pro se litigant’s pleadings are entitled to a liberal construction, though he must still
follow the rules of federal procedure. Ogden v. San Juan Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.
1994). The parties and the court are under no obligation to craft legal theories for a pro se
litigant. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Although the Court diligently reviewed this motion under such a liberal construction, the
Court cannot discern the relief requested or the legal theories relied upon. Therefore, the Motion
for Declaratory Judgment, F.R.C.P. Rule 57 is DENIED.
Dated this

12th

day of

July

, 2011.

BY THE COURT:
s/ David M. Ebel
U. S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

2