Donaldson v. Daniels

Filing 13

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 5/20/2013. (skl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-00757-BNB

DAQUAN LAMEL DONALDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
C. DANIELS, Warden,
Defendant.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Daquan Lamel Donaldson, is a prisoner in the custody of the United
States Bureau of Prisons and currently is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Mr. Donaldson, acting pro se, initiated this action by
filing a Prisoner Complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated. He seeks
compensatory damages.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Donaldson 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.
Donaldson will be ordered to file an Amended Complaint and assert how Defendant
Daniels violated his constitutional rights.

To establish personal participation, Mr. Donaldson must show how a named
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). 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. Donaldson must plead what
Defendant Daniels, a prison official, did to him through his own act that violated the
Constitution. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009).
Mr. Donaldson also must explain in his Amended Complaint when Defendant
Daniels did the action, how the action harmed him, and what specific legal right he
believes Defendant Donaldson violated. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492
F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Donaldson 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. Donaldson 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. Donaldson fails within the time allowed to file an
Amended Complaint that complies with this Order, the Court will dismiss the action
2

without further notice. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that process shall not issue until further order of
the Court.
DATED May 20, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3