Martinez v. Clancy, et al
Filing
9
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/01/2012. (skssl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02274-BNB
DANNY MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN CLANCY,
MARY CARNELL, and
APRIL CALDWELL,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Danny Martinez, has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 7)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that his rights under the United States
Constitution have been violated. The court must construe the Prisoner Complaint
liberally because Mr. Martinez 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. Martinez will be ordered to file an amended
complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
The court has reviewed the Prisoner Complaint and finds that the Prisoner
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) 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 “[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.
The claims Mr. Martinez asserts in the Prisoner Complaint arise out of his
incarceration at the Cheyenne Mountain Reentry Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Mr. Martinez specifically alleges that he is being denied adequate medical treatment.
However, he fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is
entitled to relief because he fails to allege specific facts in support of his claims that
demonstrate his constitutional rights have been violated and how the named
Defendants personally participated in the asserted constitutional violations. In order to
state a cognizable claim that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated as a
result of inadequate medical care, Mr. Martinez must allege that he has suffered a
sufficiently serious injury and that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his
2
serious medical needs. See Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1230-33 (10th Cir. 2006)
(discussing Eighth Amendment standards for medical treatment claims by prisoners).
Although Mr. Martinez alleges generally in the Prisoner Complaint that he has been
denied medications and diabetic meals and snacks, he fails to allege what each
Defendant has done or failed to do in connection with the alleged denial of medications
and diabetic meals and snacks. Instead, Mr. Martinez refers to a prior document filed in
this action for more specific allegations. However, the court has reviewed the document
to which Mr. Martinez refers (ECF No. 1) and that document also lacks specific factual
allegations that demonstrate how the named Defendants allegedly have violated his
rights.
For these reasons, Mr. Martinez will be directed to file an amended pleading that
includes all of his claims and supporting factual allegations if he wishes to pursue any
claims in this action. For each claim Mr. Martinez asserts, 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). 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).
Personal participation is an essential allegation in a § 1983 action. See Bennett
v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). To establish personal participation,
Mr. Martinez must show that each Defendant caused the deprivation of a federal right.
3
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 for the unconstitutional conduct of
his or her subordinates on a theory of respondeat superior. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 676 (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.
Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
677). 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. Martinez file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended complaint as directed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Martinez 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. Martinez fails to file an amended complaint that
4
complies with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED October 1, 2012, 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?