Woodstock v. Larimer County Sheriff et al

Filing 8

ORDER overruling 7 Objection to Magistrate's Order by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/13/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00041-GPG
JONATHAN (LANE) WOODSTOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF,
LT. S SHAFFER,
CHAPLAIN BRET RICKARD,
CAPTAIN PALMER, and
S. JONES,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

Plaintiff, Jonathan (Lane) Woodstock, is in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the San Carlos Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado.
At the time Plaintiff initiated this action, he was detained in the Larimer County Jail. Mr.
Woodstock has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint asserting a violation of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed an “objection to Magistrate’s Order” (ECF No. 7).
He objects to the February 4, 2015 Order Directing Plaintiff to File an Amended
Complaint.
On February 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher ordered Mr.
Woodstock to file, within 30 days, an amended Prisoner Complaint on the courtapproved form, that alleged sufficient facts to show the personal participation of each
named Defendant in the alleged constitutional deprivations (individual capacity claims),

as well as facts to demonstrate that a municipal policy or custom caused the alleged
constitutional violations (official capacity claims). (ECF No. 6). The February 4 Order
warned Mr. Woodstock that if he failed to file an amended Prisoner Complaint as
directed within the time allowed, some or all of this action may be dismissed without
further notice.
In his Objection to the February 4 Order, Plaintiff asserts that the facts alleged in
the original Complaint are sufficient to meet the personal participation requirement for
§ 1983 liability, and to demonstrate that a municipal policy or custom caused the
constitutional deprivations. (ECF No. 7). Mr. Woodstock then proceeds to allege
additional facts to support his claims against the Defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff also
concedes in his Objection that the Larimer County Sheriff is not a proper Defendant.
(Id. at 4).
The Court must construe liberally the February 11 Objection to the February 4
Order because Mr. Woodstock 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 be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall,
935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the objection will be overruled.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) a judge may reconsider any pretrial matter
designated to a magistrate judge to hear and determine where it has been shown that
the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court has
reviewed the file and finds that Magistrate Judge Gallagher’s February 4 order is not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Further, it appears that Plaintiff has additional
factual allegations to include in the amended complaint to support his claims against the
2

Defendants. Therefore, the Objection will be overruled. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that “Objection to Magistrate’s Order” (ECF No. 7), filed by Mr.
Woodstock on February 11, 2015, which the Court has construed liberally as an
objection pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), is OVERRULED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Woodstock shall have thirty (30) days from the
date of this Order in which to file an amended complaint in compliance with the
February 4, 2015 Order. Plaintiff is reminded that failure to file an amended complaint
within the time allowed may result in dismissal of some or all of this action without
further notice.
DATED February 13, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3