Santistevan v. Stegink et al

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/07/14. (nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02726-BNB
ARTHUR SANTISTEVAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY R. STEGINK, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office,
SUSAN SCOHY, Investigative Specialist, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office,
STEVEN D. HART, Deputy Sheriff, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Arthur Santistevan, is in the custody of the Colorado Department of
Corrections (CDOC) at the correctional facility in Buena Vista, Colorado. He has filed
pro se a Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a
deprivation of his constitutional rights. Mr. Santistevan has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 with payment of an initial
partial filing fee.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Santistevan 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). However, the Court should not act as
an advocate for pro se litigants. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. The Court has reviewed
the Complaint and has determined that it is deficient. For the reasons discussed below,
Mr. Santistevan will be ordered to file an amended complaint.

Mr. Santistevan alleges in the Complaint that on June 9, 2009, Defendant
Stegnink, a Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department investigator, prepared an affidavit in
support of an arrest warrant knowing that the affidavit contained the false information
that Plaintiff committed a burglary and criminal trespass on April 29, 2008. During the
criminal investigation, Defendant Hart, a Jefferson County deputy sheriff, interviewed
witnesses and “informed the witness(es) that they had picked out the right person in the
photographic array and that the person they picked out was a habitual criminal with a
lengthy criminal record.” (ECF No. 1, at 3). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant
Scohy, a Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department investigative specialist, created a
photographic array prior to Plaintiff’s arrest in which Plaintiff was the only Native
American and the other persons pictured were Caucasian males. Plaintiff states that
Defendant Scohy deliberately prepared a suggestive identification procedure knowing
that the suspect had been identified as a Native American. Following a preliminary
hearing, Mr. Santistevan was bound over for trial. Court-appointed advisement counsel
to Plaintiff subsequently interviewed the prosecution witnesses and learned that the
witnesses had been “t[a]mpered with by [Defendant] Hart.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that
the criminal charges were dismissed on October 3, 2012, because of witness tampering
and false information contained in the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant. Mr.
Santisteven asserts that the Defendants conspired maliciously to prosecute him without
probable cause in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also
raises § 1983 claims based on false arrest and imprisonment, violation of his equal
protection rights, and deprivations of his constitutional rights to adequate medical care
and access to the courts. Mr. Santistevan seeks monetary relief.
2

The Complaint is deficient because Plaintiff’s allegation that he was denied
adequate medical care while he was a pre-trial detainee in the Jefferson County
Detention Center is conclusory. The denial of adequate medical care to a pre-trial
detainee implicates the Constitution. See Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756, 759 n.2
(10th Cir. 1999) (noting that pre-trial detainees are protected under the Due Process
Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment; however, in determining whether the
plaintiff’s rights were violated, the court’s analysis is the same as in Eighth Amendment
cases brought pursuant to § 1983) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16
(1979)). The Eighth Amendment is violated when prison officials act with deliberate
indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
832 (1994) (quotation omitted). Mr. Santisteven does not allege facts to show that he
was denied appropriate medical care or that any of the named Defendants were
personally involved in decisions involving his medical treatment. Personal participation
is an essential allegation in a civil rights action. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260,
1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976); 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); see also Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185,
1200-1201 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[D]efendant-supervisors may be liable under § 1983 where
an ‘affirmative’ link exists between the unconstitutional acts by their subordinates and
their ‘adoption of any plan or policy. . .–express or otherwise–showing their
authorization or approval of such ‘misconduct.’”).
Mr. Santistevan also makes a conclusory allegation that he was denied access to
3

a legal library at the Jefferson County jail. State inmates have a constitutional right to
“‘adequate, effective, and meaningful’ access to the courts.” Petrick v. Maynard, 11 F.3d
991, 994 (10th Cir.1993) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977)). States
may assure this right by providing law libraries or lawyer assistance. Id. An inmate
claiming a denial of access to courts must show “actual injury” to his ability to pursue a
non-frivolous claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). Mr. Santistevan does
not allege an actual injury resulting from the lack of access to a law library, nor does he
state facts to demonstrate that any of the named Defendants were responsible for the
alleged denial of access. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Athur Santistevan, file within thirty days from the date
of this order, an amended complaint on the court-approved Prisoner Complaint form
that complies with the directives of this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Santistevan may obtain copies of the courtapproved Prisoner Complaint form (with the assistance of his case manager of the
facility’s legal assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Santistevan fails to file an Amended Complaint
as directed within the time allowed, some or all of this action may be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED October 7, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

4