Williams v. Clements et al
Filing
5
ORDER Directing Applicant to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/19/11. (lsw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03254-BNB
JASON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM CLEMENTS, DOC Director,
DOC TIME COMP, and
RAE TIMME, Warden, FCF,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Jason Williams, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department
of Corrections (DOC) at the Fremont Correctional Facility in Cañon City, Colorado. Mr.
Williams has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint. The court must construe the Prisoner
Complaint liberally because Mr. Williams is not represented by an attorney. 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 be an advocate for a pro se litigant.
See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Williams will be ordered
to file an amended complaint.
Mr. Williams asserts two claims for relief in the Prisoner Complaint. He first
asserts a habeas corpus claim challenging the computation of his sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. His second claim in the Prisoner Complaint is asserted pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenges the conditions of his confinement.
Mr. Williams may not pursue his habeas corpus claim in this action. “The
essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Generally, a prisoner’s
challenge to his conditions of confinement is cognizable in a civil rights action. See,
e.g., Richards v. Bellmon, 941 F.2d 1015, 1018 (10th Cir. 1991). If Mr. Williams
wishes to pursue his habeas corpus claim challenging the computation of his sentence,
he may do so by filing a new action using the court’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus
application form.
Although Mr. Williams may pursue his conditions of confinement claim in this
action, the court has reviewed the Prisoner Complaint and finds that the conditions of
confinement claim does not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The twin purposes of a complaint are to give the
opposing parties fair notice of the basis for the claims against them so that they may
respond and to allow the court to conclude that the allegations, if proven, show that the
plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v.
American Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989). The
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 are designed to meet these purposes. See TV
Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo.
1991), aff’d, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992). Specifically, Rule 8(a) provides that a
complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
2
entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” The philosophy of Rule 8(a) is
reinforced by Rule 8(d)(1), which provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple,
concise, and direct.” Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis
placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules. Prolix, vague, or
unintelligible pleadings violate the requirements of Rule 8.
Mr. Williams fails to provide a short and plain statement of his conditions of
confinement claim showing that he is entitled to relief because it is not clear against
which Defendant or Defendants the claim is being asserted. Furthermore, it appears
that Mr. Williams may be challenging DOC policies regarding indigent inmates but, if he
is, it is not clear whether he is claiming the DOC polices are facially invalid or whether
he is challenging the manner in which the DOC policies are being applied to his
circumstances. Therefore, Mr. Williams will be ordered to file an amended complaint
that provides a short and plain statement of his conditions of confinement claim if he
wishes to pursue that claim in this action.
In order to state a claim in federal court, Mr. Williams “must explain what each
defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action
harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant
violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir.
2007). The general rule that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally has limits
and “the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in
constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux
& Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
3
Personal participation is an essential allegation in a civil rights action. See
Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). To establish personal
participation, Mr. Williams must show that each Defendant 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). With respect to supervisory officials, a Defendant
may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates on a
theory of respondeat superior. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009).
Furthermore,
when a plaintiff sues an official under Bivens or § 1983 for
conduct “arising from his or her superintendent
responsibilities,” the plaintiff must plausibly plead and
eventually prove not only that the official’s subordinates
violated the Constitution, but that the official by virtue of his
own conduct and state of mind did so as well.
See Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. at 1949). Therefore, in order to succeed in a § 1983 suit against a government
official for conduct that arises out of his or her supervisory responsibilities, a plaintiff
must allege and demonstrate that “(1) the defendant promulgated, created,
implemented or possessed responsibility for the continued operation of a policy that (2)
caused the complained of constitutional harm, and (3) acted with the state of mind
required to establish the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Id. at 1199. Accordingly, it
is
ORDERED that Mr. Williams file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
4
order, an amended Prisoner Complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) as discussed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Williams 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. Williams fails to file an amended Prisoner
Complaint that complies with this order within the time allowed, the action will be
dismissed without further notice.
DATED December 19, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?