Hutchinson v. Houle et al

Filing 7

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 1/18/12. (lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03108-BNB
JOHN HUTCHINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. HOULE, At Buena Vista Minimum Center,
JOHN DAVIS, Warden of Buena Vista Corrections Center, and
TOM CLEMENTS, Director of Department of Corrections,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff John Hutchinson is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department
of Corrections and currently is incarcerated at the Correctional Complex in Buena Vista,
Colorado. Mr. Hutchinson, acting pro se, initiated this action by filing a Prisoner
Complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated. He asks for money
damages.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Hutchinson is a pro
se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not act as a pro se
litigant’s advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Mr.
Hutchinson will be ordered to file an Amended Complaint and assert how each properly
named party violated his constitutional rights.

Although Mr. Hutchinson has indicated personal participation by Defendant Houle
in the constitutional violations set forth in the Complaint, he fails to state any personal
participation by remaining Defendants. To establish personal participation, Mr.
Hutchinson must show how each individual caused the deprivation of a federal right.
See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). There must be an affirmative link
between the alleged constitutional violation and each defendant’s participation, control
or direction, or failure to supervise. See Butler v. City of Norman, 992 F.2d 1053, 1055
(10th Cir. 1993). A defendant may not be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior
merely because of his or her supervisory position. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,
475 U.S. 469, 479 (1986); McKee v. Heggy, 703 F.2d 479, 483 (10th Cir. 1983). A
supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations that they cause. See Dodds v.
Richardson, et al. ,614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (Tymkovich, J., concurring).
Mr. Hutchinson also is instructed that to state a claim in federal court, he must
explain in his Amended Complaint what each defendant did to him, when the defendant
did the action, how the action harmed him, and what specific legal right he believes the
defendant violated. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163
(10th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Hutchinson file within thirty days from the date of this Order
an Amended Complaint that is in keeping with the above directives. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hutchinson shall obtain the court-approved
Prisoner Complaint form (with the assistance of his case manager or the facility’s legal
assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Hutchinson fails within the time allowed to file
2

an Amended Complaint that complies with this Order, to the Court’s satisfaction, the
Court will proceed with a review of the merits of only the claims asserted against
Defendant Houle. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that process shall not issue until further order of
the Court.
DATED January 18, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

3