Aurelio v. City and County of Denver, et al
Filing
11
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/12/2013. (skl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02931-BNB
NICHOLAS J. AURELIO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
CHIEF THAN,
CAPTAIN ROMERO,
SERGEANT JORDON,
DEPUTIES OF SHERIFFS OF DENVER DETENTION CENTER, and
DENVER SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Nicholas J. Aurelio, currently is detained at the Denver County Jail in
Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff, acting pro se, initiated this action by filing a Letter that
challenges the conditions of his confinement. The Court directed Plaintiff to file his
claims on a Court-approved form, which he did on November 6, 2013. Plaintiff asserts
that his constitutional rights have been violated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and he
seeks money damages.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Plaintiff 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. Plaintiff will be ordered to file an Amended
Complaint and assert how all named parties personally participated in violating his
constitutional rights.
Defendant Denver Sheriff’s Department is not a person for the purpose of a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff must demonstrate how each of the three named
defendants personally participated in the asserted claims. Further, Plaintiff may use
fictitious names, such as John or Jane Doe, or “Deputies of Sheriffs,” if he does not
know the real names of the individuals who allegedly violated his rights. Plaintiff,
however, must provide sufficient information about each defendant so that they can be
identified for the purpose of service.
To establish personal participation, Plaintiff 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).
Plaintiff must explain in his Amended Complaint what each defendant did to him,
when they did it, 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 within thirty days from the date of this Order Plaintiff file an
2
Amended Complaint that is in keeping with the above directives. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff fails within the time allowed to file an
Amended Complaint that complies with this Order, to the Court’s satisfaction, the Court
will proceed to review the merits of Plaintiff’s claims stated in the November 6, 2013
Complaint. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that process shall not issue until further order of
the Court.
DATED November 12, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?