Plante v. Weld County District Court et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 11/24/14. (nmarb, )

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,
SARAH E. McCUTCHEON,
DETECTIVE JARAD WEEKS,
DETECTIVE WENDY STEWARD,
THE GREELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
JUDGE KOPCOW,
JOHN WALSH (Attorney P.D.),
KATHY HEFFRON (Attorney P.D.),
THE WELD COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE,
MICHAEL VEAGUS (Guard at Jail),
MR. EGGERS (person who denied grievance),
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS,
DR. MARGO GEPPERT,
KIRSTEN (nurse who refused me medication), and
THE WELD COUNTY JAIL,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, James Plante, is an inmate at the Weld County Jail in Greeley,
Colorado. Mr. Plante has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1). The court
must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Plante 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. Mr. Plante will be ordered to file an

amended complaint if he wishes to pursue any claims in this action.
The Prisoner Complaint is deficient because it does not comply with the pleading
requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The twin purposes of a
complaint are to give the opposing parties fair notice of the basis for the claims against
them so that they may respond and to allow the court to conclude that the allegations, if
proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Monument Builders of Greater
Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10 th
Cir. 1989). The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 are designed to meet these
purposes. See TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062,
1069 (D. Colo. 1991), aff’d, 964 F.2d 1022 (10 th Cir. 1992). Specifically, Rule 8(a)
provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds
for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statem ent of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” The philosophy
of Rule 8(a) is reinforced by Rule 8(d)(1), which provides that “[e]ach allegation must be
simple, concise, and direct.” Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the
emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules. Prolix, vague, or
unintelligible pleadings violate the requirements of Rule 8.
It appears that Mr. Plante is asserting claims for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Although Mr. Plante also refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
he does not specifically assert any claim pursuant to the ADA. 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
2

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.”). The named
Defendants are the Weld County District Court, a state court judge, a prosecuting
attorney, the Weld County Public Defender’s Office, two public defenders, the Greeley
Police Department, two individual Greeley police officers, the Weld County Jail, two jail
employees, the medical provider for the Weld County Jail, and two individual medical
providers at the Weld County Jail.
Mr. Plante fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing he is
entitled to relief because he fails to identify the specific federal claims he is asserting
against each Defendant and he fails to provide factual allegations in support of his
claims that specify how his federal rights have been violated. 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
(10th 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, 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).
Mr. Plante will be ordered to file an amended complaint that provides fair notice
of the claims he is asserting if he wishes to pursue those claims in this action. Mr.
3

Plante must identify, clearly and concisely, the specific federal claims he is asserting,
the specific facts that support each asserted claim, against which Defendant or
Defendants he is asserting each claim, and what each Defendant did that allegedly
violated his rights. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163
(10th Cir. 2007) (noting that, to state a claim in federal court, “a complaint 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”); see also Henry v. Storey, 658 F.3d 1235, 1241 (10 th Cir. 2011)
(allegations of “personal participation in the specific constitutional violation complained
of [are] essential”).
Mr. Plante may not sue his public defenders in an action pursuant to § 1983
because defense attorneys, whether court-appointed or privately retained, performing in
the traditional role of attorney for the defendant in a criminal proceeding are not
deemed to act under color of state law; such attorneys represent their client only, not
the state, and cannot be sued in a § 1983 action. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1268 (10 th Cir. 1994). Of course,
a defense attorney engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive his client of
his constitutional rights does act under color of state law. See Tower v. Glover, 467
U.S. 914, 920-23 (1984); Hunt, 17 F.3d at 1268. However, “[w]hen a plaintiff in a §
1983 action attempts to assert the necessary ‘state action’ by implicating state officials
or judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, mere conclusory allegations with no
supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present
facts tending to show agreement and concerted action.” Sooner Products Co. v.
4

McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10 th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Furthermore, to the extent
Mr. Plante may seek to demonstrate state action on the basis of an alleged conspiracy
with state officials who themselves are entitled to absolute immunity, the pleading
standard is even stricter. See id.
Mr. Plante also may not sue a state court judge or a prosecuting attorney in the
absence of specific factual allegations demonstrating they acted outside the scope of
their absolute immunity. Judges are absolutely immune from liability in civil rights suits
for money damages for actions taken in their judicial capacity unless the judge was
acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12
(1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d
1263, 1266-67 (10 th Cir. 1994). Similarly, “acts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing
for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his
[or her] role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the protections of absolute
immunity.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993).
Mr. Plante also may not include claims in his amended complaint against a
county or other municipal entity unless he demonstrates 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).
To the extent Mr. Plante is asserting a claim or claims against a state entity, the
claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). To the extent Mr. Plante may be asking the court to
intervene in his ongoing state court criminal case, the court must abstain from
5

exercising jurisdiction over those claims. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44
(1971).
Finally, Mr. Plante may not combine in one action separate and unrelated claim s
against different groups of Defendants. 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). Thus, Mr. Plante may not include in one action his claims arising
out of his arrest and his state court prosecution and the conditions of his confinement at
the Weld County Jail. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Plante file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended complaint that as directed in this order. 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 an
6

amended complaint that complies with this order as directed, the action will be
dismissed without further notice.
DATED November 24, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

7