Sparks v. Singh et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 08/21/12. (nmmsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01897-BNB

STEPHEN THENE SPARKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEJINDER SINGH, Physician Assistant,
LISA HANKS, Nurse,
TED LAWRENCE, Physician Assistant, Acting Health Service Administrator,
MICHEAL AASEN, MD,
ROBBIE QUICK, Health Service Administrator,
TOM CLEMENTS, C.D.O.C. Director,
STEVE HARTLEY, Warden, and
COLORADO HEALTH PARTNERS (C.H.P.)
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Stephen Thene Sparks is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections and currently is incarcerated at the Arkansas Valley
Correctional Facility in Crowley, Colorado. Mr. Sparks, acting pro se, initiated this
action by filing a Prisoner Complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated.
He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Sparks 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. Sparks will
be ordered to file an Amended Complaint and assert how each properly named party
violated his constitutional rights.
Although Mr. Sparks has indicated personal participation by Defendants Tejinder
Singh, Lisa Hanks, Ted Lawrence, and Micheal Aasen in the constitutional violations
set forth in the Complaint, he fails to state any personal participation by remaining
Defendants. To establish personal participation, Mr. Sparks 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. Sparks 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

2

ORDERED that Mr. Sparks 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. Sparks 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. Sparks fails within the time allowed to file 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 Defendants
Singh, Hanks, Lawrence, and Aasen. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that process shall not issue until further order of
the Court.
DATED August 21, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

3