Pauls v. Colorado Department of Corrections et al

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/5/12. (lyg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00496-BNB
DENNIS WAYNE PAULS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE.
SAM LEAL, Parole Officer, and
PAROLE OFFICE, Gallepagos Street, Englewood,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Dennis Wayne Pauls, initiated this action by filing pro se a Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights were violated in connection
with the revocation of his parole in February 2010. Mr. Pauls currently resides in Florida
and no longer is incarcerated as a result of the parole revocation. As relief he seeks
damages and expungement of the parole violation from his criminal record.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Pauls 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). If the Complaint reasonably can be read
“to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, [the Court] should do so
despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal
theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading
requirements.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. However, the Court should not be an advocate

for a pro se litigant. See id. For the reasons discussed below, Mr. Pauls will be ordered
to file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that it is deficient for several
reasons. First, it is not clear exactly who Mr. Pauls intends to sue. Although he lists
four Defendants in the caption of the Complaint, he lists only two Defendants--the
Colorado Department of Corrections and Sam Leal--in the section of the Complaint that
describes the parties to the action. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) Each named Defendant must
be included in the section of the court-approved Complaint form titled “Parties,” and Mr.
Pauls must provide an address for each named Defendant. Furthermore, it is not clear
who or what the Defendant identified as “Parole Office” is.
The court also finds that the Complaint is deficient because the Complaint 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 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
2

“[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 Rule 8.
Mr. Pauls alleges in the Complaint that he was charged with a parole violation in
February 2010 for failing to submit to a drug and alcohol urinalysis in December 2009.
He further alleges that he was found guilty of the charge following a parole hearing at
the Arapahoe County Detention Facility; his parole was revoked; and he was returned to
the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections to serve the remainder of his
sentence. Mr. Pauls asserts that he was falsely imprisoned as a result of the revocation
of his parole because he had complied with all urinalysis requirements throughout the
eighteen months of his parole and the parole violation charge was a deliberate
falsification of the records in his parole file. He further asserts that he was unable to
present a defense at his parole hearing because he had no notice of the charge until he
appeared before the parole board.
It appears that Mr. Pauls is asserting a due process claim challenging the
revocation of his parole. However, it is not clear exactly who the due process claim is
being asserted against or what each named Defendant did that allegedly violated his
constitutional rights. For example, it is not clear how the allegedly unconstitutional
revocation of parole implicates the Colorado Department of Corrections in any way. It
also is not clear what relief Mr. Pauls may be seeking from the Colorado Department of
Corrections or the Defendants named as Colorado Department of Parole and Parole
Office, all of which appear to be state agencies, that is not barred by Eleventh
Amendment immunity. See Ellis v. Univ. of Kan. Med. Ctr., 163 F.3d 1186, 1195-96
3

(10th Cir. 1998); Griess v. Colorado, 841 F.2d 1042, 1044-45 (10th Cir. 1988).
For all of these reasons, Mr. Pauls will be ordered to file an amended complaint
that clarifies who he is suing and that includes a short and plain statement of each claim
he is asserting. In order to state a claim in federal court, Mr. Pauls “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).
Section1983 “provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting
under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights.” Conn v. Gabbert, 526
U.S. 286, 290 (1999); see also Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992) (“[T]he purpose
of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive
individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such
deterrence fails.”). Therefore, Mr. Pauls should name as Defendants in his amended
complaint only those persons that he contends actually violated his federal
constitutional rights. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Pauls file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
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. Pauls shall obtain the court-approved Prisoner
4

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. Pauls 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 March 5, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

5