Mauchlin v. Davis et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/18/12. (nmmsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01449-BNB
PETER P. MAUCHLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN B.R. DAVIS,
DR. ZHAN, Psychologist,
ASSOC. WARDEN MUNSEN (Programs),
ASSOC. WARDEN MILUSNIC (Operations),
UNIT MANAGER P. RANGEL,
CASE MANAGER T. SUDLOW,
CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR D. FOSTER,
CHIEF CORR. SUPV. KRIST, et al.,
CHIEF CORR. SUPV. LOYD (“Complex Captain”),
CORR. SUPV. G. JENSEN (Day Watch “SHU” Supv.), and
CORR. SUPV. W. BARRY (Evening Watch “SHU” Supv.),
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Peter P. Mauchlin, is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons who currently is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Administrative
Maximum in Florence, Colorado. Mr. Mauchlin filed pro se a prisoner complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He asks for money damages. He has been
granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must construe Mr. Mauchlin’s filings liberally because he is
representing himself. 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 the

pro se litigant’s advocate. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Mr.
Mauchlin will be directed to file an amended complaint.
In the complaint, Mr. Mauchlin asserts two claims. First, he asserts that he was
placed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at ADX from January 14, 2011, until April 21,
2011. He asserts that the conditions of confinement in the SHU are unconstitutional
and impose “atypical and significant hardship” in relation to the ordinary incidents of
prison life. Complaint at 6. However, Mr. Mauchlin’s allegations in his first claim are
vague and conclusory. He alleges that the SHU was “noisy and smelly,” but he does
not identify any allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Instead, he directs
the Court to numerous attachments included with the Complaint. As his second claim,
Mr. Mauchlin asserts that he was placed in the SHU in retaliation for a court case he
had previously filed. Id. at 8.
Mr. Mauchlin’s complaint fails to 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) requires that a complaint "contain (1) a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statement
2

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 "[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. In
order for Mr. Mauchlin to state a claim in federal court, his "complaint 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).
Mr. Mauchlin fails to set forth a short and plain statement of his claims showing
that he is entitled to relief. The forty-page complaint, including attachments, is vague
and conclusory. Reviewing documents attached to the complaint to determine the
claims and specific facts Mr. Mauchlin intends to raise in this action is not a judicial
function. For the purposes of Rule 8(a), “[i]t is sufficient, and indeed all that is
permissible, if the complaint concisely states facts upon which relief can be granted
upon any legally sustainable basis.” Id.
Mr. Mauchlin will be directed to file an amended complaint that complies with the
pleading requirements of Rule 8. Mr. Mauchlin must present his claims in a
manageable format that allows the Court and the defendants to know what claims are
being asserted and to be able to respond to those claims. The amended complaint
must provide “a generalized statement of the facts from which the defendant may form a

3

responsive pleading.” New Home Appliance Ctr., Inc., v. Thompson, 250 F.2d 881, 883
(10th Cir. 1957).
In the amended complaint he will be directed to file, Mr. Mauchlin must assert
personal participation by each named defendant. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d
1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). To establish personal participation, Mr. Mauchlin must
name and show how the named defendants caused a deprivation of his federal rights.
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 he or she causes. See Dodds
v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1211 (10th Cir. 2010).
Mr. Mauchlin may use fictitious names, such as “John or Jane Doe,” if he does
not know the real names of the individuals who allegedly violated his rights. However, if
Mr. Mauchlin uses fictitious names he must provide sufficient information about each
defendant so that he or she can be identified for purposes of service.
Mr. Mauchlin, therefore, will be directed to file an amended complaint on the
Court-approved complaint form that asserts his claims clearly and concisely, alleges
what rights were violated, and provides specific facts demonstrating how each named
defendant personally participated in the asserted constitutional violations.
Accordingly, it is
4

ORDERED that Plaintiff, Peter P. Mauchlin, file within thirty days from the date of
this order an amended complaint that complies with the directives of this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Mauchlin 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. Mauchlin fails to file an amended complaint
that complies with this order within the time allowed, the Court will dismiss the complaint
and the action without further notice.
DATED June 18, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

5