Van Fleet v. Raemisch
Filing
8
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 2/25/15. (morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00224-GPG
DERIC VAN FLEET,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICK RAEMISCH,
MS. LITTLE, Gang Coordinator, and
JAMES FAULK,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Deric Van Fleet, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department
of Corrections (“DOC”) at the Sterling Correctional Facility in Sterling, Colorado. Mr.
Van Fleet has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 5) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He seeks damages as relief.
The court must construe the complaint liberally because Mr. Van Fleet 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. Van Fleet will be ordered
to file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
The complaint 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 statement 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. Van Fleet asserts three claims for relief in the complaint, one against each
Defendant, alleging that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his safety.
The Court construes the claims liberally as Eighth Amendment claims. Mr. Van Fleet
specifically alleges in support of his claims that Ms. Little failed or refused to file
charges against another inmate who threatened Mr. Van Fleet with a sharpened steel
bolt on August 26, 2014; that Warden James Faulk, who may or may not know about
the incident, has not taken any action; and that DOC Executive Director Rick Raemisch
should be held accountable because he has not stepped in and taken action.
Mr. Van Fleet fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing
he is entitled to relief because he fails to allege facts that demonstrate his Eighth
2
Amendment rights have been violated. In particular, Mr. Van Fleet fails to allege facts
that demonstrate any of the Defendants subjected him to inhumane conditions of
confinement or acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912, 916
(10th Cir. 2008). Deliberate indifference means that “a prison official may be held liable
. . . only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards
that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847.
Mr. Van Fleet’s allegation that Ms. Little failed or refused to press charges
against the inmate who threatened Mr. Van Fleet does not dem onstrate he was
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment or that
Ms. Little is responsible for whatever ongoing danger Mr. Van Fleet believes he is
facing. Similarly, Mr. Van Fleet fails to allege specific facts that demonstrate either
Warden Faulk or DOC Executive Director Raemisch were aware of and disregarded a
substantial risk of serious harm.
Vague and conclusory allegations that his federal constitutional rights have been
violated do 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 (10 th Cir. 1992). 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). Thus, “in analyzing the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, the court
need accept as true only the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual contentions, not his
3
conclusory allegations.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
For these reasons, Mr. Van Fleet will be directed to file an amended complaint.
Mr. Van Fleet must identify the specific constitutional claims he is asserting, the specific
factual allegations that support each 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 (10 th 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”). A defendant may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his
subordinates on a theory of respondeat superior. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
676 (2009). Although a defendant can be liable in a § 1983 action based on his
supervisory responsibilities, a claim of supervisory liability must be supported by
allegations that demonstrate personal involvement, a causal connection to the
constitutional violation, and a culpable state of mind. See Schneider v. City of Grand
Junction Police Dept., 717 F.3d 760, 767-69 (10 th Cir. 2013) (discussing standards for
supervisory liability). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Van Fleet file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended complaint that complies with this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Van Fleet shall obtain the court-approved
4
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. Van Fleet fails within the time allowed to file an
amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED February 25, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?