Plante v. Weld County District Court et al

Filing 20

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Second Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 1/28/15. (morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-03155-GPG
JAMES PLANTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,
GREELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
DET. WEEKS,
STEWARD,
THE WELD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
MICHAEL GOMEZ,
CORRECTIVE CARE SOLUTIONS,
DR. MARGO GEPPERT,
NURSE KIRSTEN,
MICHAEL VEAGUS, Guard,
SHUETT, Guard,
AGUIRRE, Commander,
MR. EGGERS,
CULPEPPER, Guard,
KOPPUS, Guard,
MR. ROSEBOCK, and
MR. FARNEY, Guard,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, James Plante, is an inmate at the Weld County Jail in Greeley,
Colorado. Mr. Plante initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No.
1). On November 24, 2014, the court ordered Mr. Plante to f ile an amended complaint
that complies with the pleading and joinder requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. On December 24, 2014, Mr. Plante filed an amended Prisoner Complaint

(ECF No. 15). On January 12, 2015, Mr. Plante filed another document (ECF No. 19)
making additional amendments to his claims in this action.
The court must construe Mr. Plante’s filings liberally because he 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 (10 th Cir. 1991). However, the court should not be an
advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated
below, Mr. Plante will be ordered to file a second amended complaint if he wishes to
pursue his claims.
The court has reviewed the amended Prisoner Complaint and finds that the
amended Prisoner Complaint is deficient. For one thing, Mr. Plante fails to provide an
address for each named Defendant. Mr. Plante must provide a complete address for
each named Defendant so that each Defendant may be served properly. Mr. Plante
also should list each Defendant on a separate line in the caption of the second
amended complaint in order to clarify exactly who he is suing.
More importantly, the amended Prisoner Complaint is deficient because Mr.
Plante still fails to comply with the pleading and joinder requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. However, because it appears that Mr. Plante has made some
effort to comply with the court’s prior order to amend, he will be given one more
opportunity to file a proper pleading in this action.
The amended Prisoner Complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr. Plante still fails to provide a clear
and concise statement of each claim he is asserting in this action that demonstrates he
is entitled to relief. Instead, Mr. Plante provides an abundance of disorganized and
2

generally vague and conclusory factual allegations without making clear what specific
claims he is asserting against each named Defendant and what specific facts support
each asserted claim. Portions of the amended Prisoner Complaint also are difficult to
read because of the size of Mr. Plante’s handwriting. Furthermore, Mr. Plante may not
litigate his claims in piecemeal fashion, which he attempts to do by making additional
amendments in the document (ECF No. 19) filed on January 12. In short, Mr. Plante
places an unreasonable burden on the court and Def endants to identify and respond to
his claims in this action.
Merely making vague and conclusory allegations that his rights have been
violated does not entitle a pro se pleader to a day in court, regardless of how liberally
the court construes such pleadings. See Ketchum v. Cruz, 775 F. Supp. 1399, 1403
(D. Colo. 1991), aff’d, 961 F.2d 916 (10 th Cir. 1992). “[I]n analyzing the sufficiency of
the plaintiff’s complaint, the court need accept as true only the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
factual contentions, not his conclusory allegations.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
Furthermore, neither the court nor the Defendants are required to guess in order to
determine what specific claims are being asserted and what specific factual allegations
support each claim. 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 (10 th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Dunkel,
927 F.2d 955, 956 (7 th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in
briefs.”).
In order to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 Mr. Plante must
3

present his claims clearly and concisely in a manageable format in one document that
allows the court and the Defendants to know what claims are being asserted and to be
able to respond to those claims. For each claim he asserts in the second amended
complaint Mr. Plante “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 (10 th Cir. 2007); see also Henry v. Storey, 658 F.3d 1235,
1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (allegations of “personal participation in the specific constitutional
violation complained of [are] essential”). However, “[i]t is sufficient, and indeed all that
is permissible, if the complaint concisely states facts upon which relief can be granted
upon any legally sustainable basis.” New Home Appliance Ctr., Inc., v. Thompson, 250
F.2d 881, 883 (10 th Cir. 1957).
Mr. Plante is reminded that he may not include claims in his second amended
complaint against a county or other municipal entity unless he alleges facts that
demonstrate he suffered an injury caused by a municipal policy or custom. See
Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dept., 717 F.3d 760, 769-71 (10 th Cir. 2013)
(discussing Supreme Court standards for municipal liability); Dodds v. Richardson, 614
F.3d 1185, 1202 (10 th Cir. 2010). Mr. Plante also is reminded that, to the extent he may
be asking the court to intervene in his ongoing state court criminal case, the court must
abstain from exercising jurisdiction over those claims. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37, 44 (1971).
With respect to the joinder requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Mr. Plante also may not combine separate and unrelated claims against various
4

Defendants in one action. Pursuant to Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, “[a] party asserting a claim . . . may join, as independent or alternative
claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” However, the issue of
whether multiple Defendants may be joined in a single action is governed by Rule
20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one action as
defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them
jointly, severally, or in the alternative with
respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all
defendants will arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Mr. Plante does not allege facts that demonstrate his claim or
claims regarding his arrest properly may be joined in one action with his claims
regarding his medical treatment and the conditions of his confinement at the Weld
County Jail. If Mr. Plante persists in including improperly joined claims in a single
action, the court will sever the claims into separate actions. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Plante file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, a second amended complaint that complies with the pleading and joinder
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Plante 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. Plante fails within the time allowed to file a
5

second amended complaint that complies with this order as directed, the action will be
dismissed without further notice.
DATED January 28, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

6