Santiago v. Hoffman et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 1/12/2015. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00051-GPG
JIMMY SANTIAGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN HOFFMAN, HSA,
DR. WEINPAHL, M.D.
JODI SINKER, Nurse III, and
CDOC CHIEF SR. OFFICER OF CORR. HEALTHCARE,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Jimmy Santiago, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility in Cañon
City, Colorado. Mr. Santiago has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming his rights under the United States Constitution
have been violated. He seeks damages and declaratory relief.
The court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Santiago
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. Santiago will be ordered to file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue
his claims in this action.
The Prisoner Complaint is deficient. First, Mr. Santiago fails to provide an

address for any of the Defendants. Mr. Santiago must provide a complete address for
each Defendant so that they may be served properly.
The Prisoner Complaint also 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 Rule 8.
Mr. Santiago fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing he
is entitled to relief because he fails to allege clearly and concisely how each Defendant
personally participated in the asserted constitutional violations. Allegations of “personal
participation in the specific constitutional violation complained of [are] essential.” Henry
v. Storey, 658 F.3d 1235, 1241 (10 th Cir. 2011). Mr. Santiago’s vague assertions that
2

“Defendants” have denied him proper medical treatment are not sufficient because he
fails to specify what each Defendant did that allegedly violated his constitutional rights.
For these reasons, Mr. Santiago will be ordered to file an amended complaint.
For each claim he asserts in the amended complaint, Mr. Santiago “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). 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). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Santiago file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended complaint as directed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Santiago 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. Santiago fails to file an amended complaint
that complies with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.

3

DATED January 12, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher

United States Magistrate Judge

4