Ortiz v. Falk et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/28/2013. (skl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-00612-BNB
ALEXIS R. ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections,
JAMES FALK, Warden, Sterling Correctional Facility,
BEVERLY DOWIS, Health Service Administrator, Sterling Correctional Facility,
GATBEL CHAMJOCK, Referring Provider, P.A.,
JOANN STOCK, Sterling Correctional Facility, P.A.,
DR. JOSEPH G. FORTUNATO, Sterling Correctional Facility,
LT. HOFFMAN, Sterling Correctional Facility, and
ALL MEDICAL STAFF AT STERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Alexis R. Ortiz, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department
of Corrections currently incarcerated at the correctional facility in Sterling, Colorado.
Mr. Ortiz, 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. Ortiz 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. Ortiz will be

ordered to file an Amended Complaint and assert how all named parties violated his
constitutional rights.
Mr. Ortiz has indicated personal participation by Defendants JoAnn Stock, Dr.
Joseph G. Fortunato, and Lt. Hoffman in the constitutional violations set forth in the
Complaint, but he fails to state any personal participation by the remaining Defendants.
To establish personal participation, Mr. Ortiz 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).
To state a claim in federal court, Mr. Ortiz 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
ORDERED that Mr. Ortiz 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. Ortiz shall obtain the Court-approved Prisoner
2

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. Ortiz fails within the time allowed to file an
Amended Complaint that complies with this Order, the Court will proceed with a review
of the merits of only the claims asserted against Defendants JoAnn Stock, Dr. Joseph
G. Fortunato, and Lt. Hoffman. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that process shall not issue until further order of
the Court.
DATED March 28, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3