Colborn v. Denver Sheriffs Dept. et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 12/22/14. (nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03419-GPG
CHAD ALEXANDER COLBORN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER SHERIFF’S DEPT.,
DENVER COUNTY JAIL, and
DENVER HEALTH SERVICES,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Chad Alexander Colborn currently is detained at the Denver County Jail
in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a Prisoner Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 seeking injunctive relief and money damages. The Court must construe
Plaintiff’s Complaint 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 (10th Cir.
1991). However, the Court cannot act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall,
935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff will be directed to file an
Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff must assert personal participation by each named defendant in the
alleged constitutional violation. 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).
Also, Plaintiff may not sue the Denver County Jail (Denver Sheriff’s Department
or Denver Health Services). The jail is not a separate entity from Denver City and
County, and, therefore, is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Stump v. Gates,
777 F. Supp. 808, 814-16 (D. Colo. 1991), aff'd, 986 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1993). Any
claims asserted against the jail must be considered as asserted against Denver City
and County.
In addition, municipalities and municipal entities are not liable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 solely because their employees inflict injury on a plaintiff. Monell v. New York
City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Hinton v. City of Elwood, Kan.,
997 F.2d 774, 782 (10th Cir. 1993). To establish liability, a plaintiff must show that a
policy or custom exists and that there is a direct causal link between the policy or
custom and the injury alleged. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385
(1989). Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief against Denver City and County under
§ 1983 merely by pointing to isolated incidents. See Monell , 436 U.S. at 694.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall
file an Amended Complaint that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff 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

2

FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint that
complies with this Order within the time allowed the Court will dismiss the Complaint
and the action without further notice.
DATED December 22, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher

United States Magistrate Judge

3