Bassett v. Colorado Department of Corrections
Filing
7
ORDER to File an Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/17/2014. (skl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03391-BNB
STEVEN BASSETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
UNKNOWN CTU DRIVER, and
SERGEANT LOMBARDO
Defendants.
ORDER TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Steven Bassett, is in the custody of the Colorado Department of
Corrections. He currently is incarcerated at the Denver Reception and Diagnostic
Center in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Colorado state tort
laws.
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). If the Complaint reasonably can be
read “to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, [the Court] should do so
despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal
theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading
requirements.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. However, the Court should not act as an
advocate for pro se litigants. See id.
Plaintiff claims his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants
Lombardo and Unknown CTU Driver transported him without a seatbelt and drove in an
unsafe manner. Plaintiff further claims that due to Defendants’ deliberate indifference
an accident occurred and Plaintiff incurred significant physical and psychological
injuries. Plaintiff seeks money damages and the use of safety devices when
transporting inmates
A claim against Defendant State of Colorado is barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). “It is
well established that absent an unmistakable waiver by the state of its Eleventh
Amendment immunity, or an unmistakable abrogation of such immunity by Congress,
the amendment provides absolute immunity from suit in federal courts for states and
their agencies.” Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dep’t of Mental Health, 41 F.3d 584, 588 (10th
Cir. 1994).
The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a federal court action so long as the
plaintiff seeks in substance only prospective relief and not retrospective relief for alleged
violations of federal law, but Plaintiff must assert a claim for prospective relief against
individual state officers. Verizon Maryland v. Public Service Commission of Maryland,
535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002) (quoting Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho,
521 U.S. 261, 296 (1997)); Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2007). Defendant
State of Colorado, therefore, is an improper party to this action.
Finally, naming an unknown driver, without more, is the same as naming a
2
fictitious party, such as John or Jane Doe. If Plaintiff does not know the real name of
the driver, he must provide sufficient information about the driver so that he/she can be
identified for the purpose of service.
Plaintiff will be directed to amend his Complaint consistent with these findings.
Plaintiff must assert personal participation by each properly named defendant in any
alleged constitutional violations. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th
Cir. 1976). To establish personal participation, Plaintiff must show how each named
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).
To state a claim in federal court Plaintiff must explain (1) what a defendant did to
him; (2) when the defendant did it; (3) how the defendant’s action harmed him;
and (4) what specific legal right 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 Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this Order to
file an Amended Complaint as directed above. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain the Court-approved Prisoner
Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov, to be
used in filing the Amended Complaint. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed the
Court will proceed to review the merits of only the claims that are asserted against
3
properly named defendants.
DATED January 17, 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?