Alexander v. Executive Director of Colorado Dept. of Corrections et al
Filing
7
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/4/13. (nmmsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00647-BNB
DARRICK ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COLORADO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
WARDEN OF STERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
ASS. WARDEN OF STERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
JANE & JOHN DOE ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS, S.C.F.,
C. SOARES, Administrative Head, S.C.F.,
LT. PRESTON TEN EYCK, S.C.F.,
CHAIRPERSON ALLEN HARMS, S.C.F.,
INITIATING D.O.C. EMPLOYEE JIMERSON, S.C.F.,
CM I RANDY NORRIS, S.C.F.,
CM III WESLEY WILSON, S.C.F.,
DAN CRANSFIELD & LAW LIBRARY STAFF, S.C.F.,
CM DARREL SNYDER, S.C.F.,
MAJOR REVORD & JANE & JOHN DOE, S.C.F. Kitchen,
LT. BYCKOWSKI, S.C.F.,
SGT. BELCHER, S.C.F.,
SGT. ARFSTEN, S.C.F.,
CDOC STEP 3 GRIEVANCE OFFICER ANTHONY A. DeCESARO,
SGT. JONES, S.C.F.,
CO HUX, S.C.F.,
CO HUFF, S.C.F.,
CO JANE & JOHN DOE, S.C.F. Mailroom & Staff,
CO BAXTON, S.C.F.,
CO ASH, S.C.F.,
CO DAVIDSON, S.C.F.,
CO ANDRIELLO, S.C.F.,
CO BRIGGS, S.C.F., and
JANE & JOHN DOE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, S.C.F. & CDOC,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Darrick Alexander, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility in Buena Vista,
Colorado. Mr. Alexander has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his rights under the United States Constitution have been
violated. Mr. Alexander specifically asserts nineteen claims against at least twentyseven Defendants. He seeks damages as relief.
The court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Alexander
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. Alexander 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 is deficient. For one thing, it is not clear exactly who and how many
Defendants Mr. Alexander is suing because the manner in which Mr. Alexander lists the
Defendants in the caption of the Prisoner Complaint is confusing and violates the court’s
local rules. Pursuant to Rule 10.1J. of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado-Civil, “[p]arties shall be listed in a caption with
one party per line. The proper name of a party shall be in capital letters, and any
identifying text shall be in upper and lower case immediately following the proper name.”
Mr. Alexander may use fictitious names, such as John and Jane Doe, if he does not
know the real names of the individuals who he is suing, but he still must make clear how
many John and Jane Does are being named as Defendants by listing only one
2
Defendant per line in the caption and he must provide sufficient information about each
defendant so that he or she can be identified for purposes of service. Mr. Alexander
also must provide an address where each named Defendant may be served.
The court also finds that the Prisoner Complaint does not 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 Rule 8.
Mr. Alexander fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing
that he is entitled to relief for several reasons. First, he fails to identify which Defendant
or Defendants are being sued with respect to each asserted claim. In fact, a number of
Mr. Alexander’s claims are not asserted against any specific Defendants. Mr.
3
Alexander also fails to allege specifically what each named Defendant did that allegedly
violated his rights even when he specifically links one or more Defendants to the claims
he is asserting. For example, Mr. Alexander asserts a series of due process claims
against a number of Defendants within claim 9, but he fails to allege specific facts
regarding what each named Defendant allegedly did to violate his due process rights.
Finally, Mr. Alexander fails to provide specific factual allegations in support of many of
his claims. Instead, he asserts a number of claims that are supported only with vague
and conclusory allegations that are not sufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief.
Because Mr. Alexander fails to provide a short and plain statement of each of his
claims, it also is not clear whether all of the named Defendants properly are joined in
one lawsuit. Pursuant to Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party
asserting a claim . . . may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as
it has against an opposing party.” However, the issue of whether multiple Defendants
may be joined in a single action is governed by Rule 20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which provides:
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one action as
defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them
jointly, severally, or in the alternative with
respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all
defendants will arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). If Mr. Alexander is not asserting claims against all of the
Defendants that arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
4
or occurrences, and that raise a question of law or fact common to all Defendants, he
may not sue all of the Defendants in one action.
For all of these reasons, Mr. Alexander must file an amended complaint if he
wishes to pursue any claims in this action. Mr. Alexander must identify, clearly and
concisely, who he is suing, the specific claims he is asserting, the specific facts that
support each asserted claim, against which Defendant or Defendants he is asserting
each claim, and what each Defendant did that allegedly violated his rights. See Nasious
v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that, to
state a claim in federal court, “a 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”). 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).
In addition, § 1983 “provides a federal cause of action against any person who,
acting under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights.” Conn v. Gabbert,
526 U.S. 286, 290 (1999); see also Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992) (“[T]he
purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to
deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if
such deterrence fails.”). Therefore, Mr. Alexander should name as Defendants in his
amended complaint only those persons that he contends actually violated his federal
constitutional rights.
5
Some of the named Defendants are supervisory officials. Personal participation
is an essential allegation in a civil rights action. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260,
1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). To establish personal participation, Mr. Alexander must show
that each Defendant 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). With respect to supervisory officials, 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. Alexander file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended Prisoner Complaint that complies with the court’s local rules and the
6
pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as discussed in this
order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Alexander 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. Alexander fails to file an amended Prisoner
Complaint that complies with this order within the time allowed, the action will be
dismissed without further notice.
DATED April 4, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
7
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?