Story v. City of Fruita

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/11/2013. (skl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-03221-BNB
ALAN R. STORY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FRUITA,
Defendant.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Alan R. Story, resides in Fruita, Colorado. He initiated this action by
filing pro se a Complaint asserting a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. 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 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). The Court has reviewed
the Complaint and has determined that it is deficient. The Court will direct Plaintiff to file
an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
Section 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."). Municipalities and municipal entities are not liable under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 solely because their employees inflict injury on a plaintiff. Monell v. New York City
Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Hinton v. City of Elwood, Kan., 997
F.2d 774, 782 (10th Cir. 1993). To establish liability, a plaintiff must show that a policy
or custom exists and that there is a direct causal link between the policy or custom and
the injury alleged. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989) (emphasis
added). Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief against the City of Fruita under § 1983
merely by pointing to an isolated incident. See Monell , 436 U.S. at 694. Accordingly, it
is
ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order Plaintiff shall file
an amended complaint as directed in this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain the Court-approved complaint
form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint that
complies with this Order within the time allowed, the Court will dismiss the action
without further notice.
DATED December 11, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2