Lornes v. Amdujar

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 08/22/12. (nmmsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02219-BNB
WILLIAM LEE LORNES THE III, also known as
WILLIAM LEE LORNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMDUJAR,
Defendant.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, William Lee Lornes the III, also known as William Lee Lornes, currently
is detained at the Denver Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center. The caption of this
order has been corrected to include his alias. Mr. Lornes filed pro se a Prisoner
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 (ECF No. 1) and a Prisoner=s Motion and
Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915 (ECF No. 3). He has been
granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915 without payment of an initial
partial filing fee.
The Court has reviewed the Prisoner Complaint and finds that it is deficient. Mr.
Lornes' claims are barely intelligible. He appears to allege that Denver sheriff,
Amdujar, verbally abused him, and that he was taken to court in handcuffs that were too
tight. He also submits numerous unexplained exhibits to the complaint. Mr. Lornes
asserts his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). However, because he is not

suing federal officials, his claims more properly are asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '
1983. See, e.g., Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254 n. 2 (2006) (noting that "a
Bivens action is the federal analog to suits brought against state officials under 42
U.S.C. ' 1983).
To the extent Mr. Lornes seeks to hold the Denver sheriff or any other individual
liable for civil rights violations, he must name such individuals in the caption of the
complaint and allege facts in the text of the complaint to show each individual
defendant's personal participation in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See
Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976); Kentucky v. Graham, 473
U.S. 159, 166 (1985). Moreover, a supervisor is only liable for a constitutional violation
that he or she has caused. See Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1199 (10th Cir.
2010). Accordingly, 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); see also
Richardson, 614 F.3d at 1200-1201 ("[D]efendant-supervisors may be liable under '
1983 [or Bivens] where an >affirmative' link exists between the unconstitutional acts by
their subordinates and their >adoption of any plan or policy. . .Bexpress or
otherwiseBshowing their authorization or approval of such >misconduct.'") (quoting Rizzo
v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976)). Supervisors cannot be held liable merely
because of their supervisory positions. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S.
469, 479 (1986); McKee v. Heggy, 703 F.2d 479, 483 (10th Cir. 1983). This is
because "' 1983 does not recognize a concept of strict supervisor liability; the
defendant's role must be more than one of abstract authority over individuals who
2

actually committed a constitutional violation." Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147,
1162 (10th Cir. 2008).
Mr. Lornes 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. Lornes uses fictitious names he must provide sufficient information about each
defendant so that he or she can be identified for purposes of service. Mr. Lornes also
must provide the full address for each named defendant so that each defendant can be
properly served.
The amended Prisoner Complaint Mr. Lornes will be directed to file also must
comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Specifically, Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint Amust 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 A[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.
Neither the Court nor the defendant is required to guess in order to determine the
specific factual allegations that are being asserted in support of each claim. 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
3

F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
Finally, Mr. Lornes is advised that, in order to comply with Rule 8, he must
provide "a generalized statement of the facts from which the defendant may form a
responsive pleading." New Home Appliance Ctr., Inc., v. Thompson, 250 F.2d 881,
883 (10th Cir. 1957). In particular, he "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). At the same time,
"[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. Therefore,
Mr. Lornes should take care to ensure that his amended complaint provides a clear and
concise statement of the claims he is asserting. The Court will not consider any claims
raised in separate amendments, supplements, motions, or other documents that are not
included in the amended complaint.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the clerk of the Court add William Lee Lornes, the alias for
William Lee Lornes the III, to the docketing records for this case. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff, William Lee Lornes, file, within thirty (30)
days from the date of this order, an amended Prisoner Complaint as directed in this
order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lornes shall obtain the Court-approved Prisoner
Complaint form (with the assistance of his case manager or the facility=s legal assistant),

4

along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Lornes fails to file an amended Prisoner
Complaint that complies with this order within the time allowed, the Prisoner Complaint
and the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, on August 22, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

5