Williams v. No Named Defendant
Filing
12
SECOND ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 02/06/14. (nmarb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03249-BNB
JAMIE R. WILLIAMS
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. MARTIN,
LT. WILCOX,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER “ROY,”
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER “GABBY,”
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER “VALVERDE,”
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER “THOMPSON,”
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER “MARQUEZ,” and
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER “YENTER,”
Defendants.
SECOND ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Jamie R. Williams, is a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary, Florence High, in Florence, Colorado. He initiated this action by filing pro
se an affidavit alleging that his constitutional rights were violated. The Court determined
that the affidavit was deficient and directed Mr. Williams to submit his claims on the
court-approved form, which he did on January 9, 2014 (ECF No. 7). On January 17,
2014, the Court reviewed the Prisoner Complaint, and ordered Mr. Williams to file an
amended prisoner complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that alleges specific facts demonstrating how
each named defendant personally participated in the asserted constitutional violations
1
(ECF No. 10). The Court directed Mr. Williams to use the court-approved form for filing
an amended prisoner complaint; to provide the full addresses for each named
defendant; to sign and date the declaration under penalty of perjury in the complaint;
and to comply with Rule 10.1 of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court regarding
format and legibility. (Id.) Finally, the Court warned Plaintiff that it would not consider
any claims raised in separate attachments, amendments, supplements, motions, or
other documents not included in the amended prisoner complaint. (Id.) On February 4,
2014, Mr. Williams submitted a document titled “Amendent [sic] Complaint” (ECF No.
11).
The Amended Complaint does not comply with the court’s January 17, 2014
Order. For one thing, the local rules of practice require pro se prisoners to “use the
forms and procedures posted on the court’s website.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(c).
Moreover, Mr. Williams may not file an amended complaint in separate pieces; the
amended prisoner complaint must be one complete document that consists of all of the
pages of the court approved Prisoner Complaint form.
In addition, the court has reviewed the Amended Complaint and finds that Mr.
Williams’ allegations do not assert how all named parties violated his constitutional
rights. Specifically, there are no allegations against Defendants Thompson, Marquez,
and Yenter. Moreover, Mr. Williams asserts claims against Nurse Ovary in the body of
the Amended Complaint but does not list her as a party in the caption. Plaintiff must
provide all the names of the defendants he intends to sue in the caption, and he must
state specific facts in the body of the amended prisoner complaint to show that each
defendant was personally involved in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
2
Mr. Williams will be given one more opportunity to file an amended prisoner
complaint on the court-approved Prisoner Complaint form that complies with the court’s
January 17, 2014 Order. For each claim Mr. Williams asserts in the amended
complaint, he “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.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E Agents, 492
F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). In other words, Mr. Williams must make clear in the
amended complaint what specific claim or claims he is asserting against each named
Defendant, what specific constitutional rights allegedly have been violated, and how
each named Defendant personally participated in the asserted constitutional violations.
Furthermore, 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).
Therefore, the Court directs Mr. Williams to file a second amended prisoner
complaint on a court-approved form that alleges the personal participation of each
defendant listed in the caption of the complaint and clarifies against whom Mr. Williams
is alleging the claims. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Jamie R. Williams, shall have thirty (30) days from the
date of this order to file an amended prisoner complaint using the court-approved
Prisoner Complaint form that complies with the directives in this Order and the Court’s
January 17, 2014 Order. It is
3
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Williams 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. Williams fails to file an amended prisoner
complaint that complies with this Order and the Court’s January 17, 2014 Order within
the time allowed, some of the claims and defendants in this action will be dismissed
without further notice.
DATED February 6, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?