Stocks v. Fogg, et al

Filing 7

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/02/2013. (skl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02982-BNB
THOMAS STOCKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. NATHAN FOGG,
SGT. MICHAEL MORRIS,
DEPUTY P. BOLTE,
MICHAEL BALDING,
DEPUTY LITWEITER,
JOHN WEILER,
DEPUTY ANTILLA, and
SGT. CHRISTOPHER GABRIEL,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Thomas Stocks, currently resides in Aurora, Colorado. Acting pro se,
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint on October 31, 2013. The Court must
construe the Complaint liberally because Plaintiff 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). The Court, however, should not act as a pro se litigant’s
advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
Plaintiff fails to assert in each claim how a named defendant personally
participated in the alleged violations. 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, Plaintiff 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). A named defendant may not be held
liable 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, Plaintiff must explain what each defendant did to
him; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s 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).
Also, pursuant to Rule 8.1A. of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado-Civil, “[a] pro se party shall use the forms
established by this court to file an action.” Plaintiff must state each claim, in Section D.
of the complaint form, in a short and concise format and include a statement of the
rights violated and the actions committed by each defendant that show how they
violated his rights. Plaintiff also is to provide all requested information in the Complaint
form. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint as instructed above, within
thirty days from the date of this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain the proper Court-approved form,

2

along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov for use in filing the
Amended Complaint. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the
time allowed the Court will proceed to review the merits of the claims as presented in
the original Complaint.
DATED December 2, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3