Cary-Sadler v. Denver Sheriff's Department

Filing 8

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 3/08/2015. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00274-GPG
REID HOLIDAY CARY-SADLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
DENVER DOWNTOWN DETENTION CENTER (then on shift staff), and
DENVER SHERIFF’S DEPUTY FULLER,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Reid Holiday Cary-Sadler, is an inmate at the Denver County Jail in
Denver, Colorado. Mr. Cary-Sadler has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 5)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging he was strangled by Defendant Fuller. The court
must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Cary-Sadler 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. Cary-Sadler will be
ordered to file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claim in this action.
The Prisoner Complaint 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 the requirements of Rule 8.
Mr. Cary-Sadler fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claim showing
he is entitled to relief because he fails to provide specific factual allegations in support
of that claim. Mr. Cary-Sadler alleges that he was strangled by Defendant Fuller,
apparently on two occasions, but he does not allege when these incidents occurred and
he fails to provide any factual allegations describing the events that led to these
incidents or what injuries he suffered as a result of the incidents. It is not sufficient to
refer to unspecified news articles and reports; Mr. Cary-Sadler must allege the specific
facts that support the federal claim he is asserting. 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
2

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”). Furthermore, it is not clear what
claim Mr. Cary-Sadler may be asserting against the other Defendants listed in the
caption of the Prisoner Complaint.
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). Therefore, Mr. Cary-Sadler must file an
amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claim in this action.
Section 1983 “provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting
under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights.” Conn v. Gabbert, 526
U.S. 286, 290 (1999). Mr. Cary-Sadler should name as Defendants only those persons
he contends actually violated his federal rights. To the extent Mr. Cary-Sadler may
intend to assert a claim against anyone other than Deputy Fuller, he fails to identify who
that person is or how they personally participated in the asserted constitutional
violation. Mr. Cary-Sadler also may not include claims in his amended complaint
against a county or other municipal entity, such as the Denver Sheriff’s Department,
unless he demonstrates he suffered an injury caused by a municipal policy or custom.
See Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dept., 717 F.3d 760, 769-71 (10 th Cir.
2013) (discussing Supreme Court standards for municipal liability); Dodds v.
Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1202 (10 th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Cary-Sadler file, within thirty (30) days from the date of
3

this order, an amended complaint that complies with this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Cary-Sadler 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. Cary-Sadler fails within the time allowed to file
an amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed
without further notice.
DATED March 8, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

4