Brown v. Diggins et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 12/22/2014. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03430-GPG
BYRON T. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF DIGGINS, Denver Sheriff’s Department, and
JANE AND JOHN DOES, Denver Sheriff’s (x6),
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Byron T. Brown 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 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.
The Prisoner Complaint is deficient because Plaintiff fails to allege specific facts
to show the personal participation of Defendants in the violation of his constitutional
rights. Personal participation is an essential element of 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).
To establish personal participation, Plaintiff must show how each individual
caused the deprivation of a federal right. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 166. 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). A def endant may not be held liable on a theory
of respondeat superior merely because of his or her supervisory position. See
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479 (1986); McKee v. Heggy, 703 F.2d
479, 483 (10th Cir. 1983). A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations that
they cause. See Dodds v. Richardson, et al., 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010)
(Tymkovich, J., concurring).
Sheriff Diggins can only be held liable for his own deliberate intentional acts.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); Serna v. Colo. Dep’t of Corrections,
455 F.3d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Supervisors are only liable under § 1983 for
their own culpable involvement in the violation of a person's constitutional rights.”); see
also Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[Section] 1983 does
not recognize a concept of strict supervisor liability; the defendant’s role must be more
than one of abstract authority over individuals who actually committed a constitutional
violation.”).
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).
Also, if Plaintiff does not know the real names of Defendants Jane and John
Does he must provide sufficient information about these defendants so that he/she can
be identified for the purpose of service.

2

Finally, Plaintiff’s handwriting is not legible because he has failed to leave
sufficient space between each line, which makes understanding his handwritten
allegations difficult. Pursuant to Rule 10.1(e)and (g) of the Local Rules of Practice for
this Court, Plaintiff is required to double space all filings and print legibly. 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
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