Todd v. USA et al

Filing 14

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 05/01/15. (nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00344-GPG
BYRON TYROME TODD,
Plaintiff,
v.
USA,
U.S. PERSON(S), and
THE WORLD BANK,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Byron Tyrome Todd currently is detained at the El Paso County Criminal
Justice Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Plaintiff has filed a Prisoner Complaint
and a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 pursuant to the Court’s order to cure deficiencies.
In an Order dated March 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gordon Gallagher ordered
Plaintiff to file a proper complaint on court-approved forms. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff
filed a “Writ for Sanctions for Non-Compliance” and attached many exhibits, including a
document that purported to be a complaint. On April 8,2015, Judge Gallagher ordered
Plaintiff to file a complaint that complied with the appropriate standards (ECF No. 12).
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 30, 2015. This Complaint is not in
compliance with the Court’s directives as set forth in its April 8, 2015 Order (ECF No.
12).

The Court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Plaintiff 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 a Second Amended Complaint.
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 (10th 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 (10th Cir. 1992).
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.
Claims must be presented clearly and concisely in a manageable format
that allows a court and a defendant to know what claims are being asserted and
to be able to respond to those claims. New Home Appliance Ctr., Inc., v. Thompson,

2

250 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1957). For the purposes of Rule 8(a), “[i]t is sufficient, and
indeed all that is permissible, if the complaint concisely states facts upon which relief
can be granted upon any legally sustainable basis.” Id.
In order to state a claim in federal court, Mr. Todd “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
(10th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff does no name any individual defendant in the current
action. Instead, he names the USA, US Persons and the World Bank. This is not
sufficient.
Plaintiff must allege, simply and concisely, his specific claims for relief, including
the specific rights that allegedly have been violated and the specific acts of each
defendant that allegedly violated his rights. The Court does not require a long,
chronological recitation of facts. Nor should the Court or defendants be required to sift
through plaintiff’s allegations to locate the heart of each claim. 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).
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that Plaintiff fails to provide a
short and plain statement of his claims in compliance with the pleading requirements of
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff lists a number of federal

3

statutes as the jurisdiction for his claims. Due to the vagueness of the claims, however,
Plaintiff fails to assert any factual basis that falls within the purview of these statutes.
Plaintiff also appears to base his copyright/trademark infringement and breach of
contract claims on the conditions of his confinement, which Plaintiff further contends
violate his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s claims are
nonsensical and do not state the proper statutory authority for his claims.
A decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 8 is within the trial court’s
sound discretion. See Atkins v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 967 F.2d 1197, 1203 (8th Cir.
1992); Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969). The Court,
however, will give Plaintiff one more opportunity to cure the deficiencies in the
Complaint by submitting a Second Amended Complaint that meets the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Plaintiff is required to assert personal participation by properly named
individual defendants in the alleged constitutional violation. See Bennett v.
Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). To establish personal participation,
Plaintiff must show in the Cause of Action section of the complaint form how each
named individual caused the deprivation of a federal right. See Kentucky v. Graham,
473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). 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).
Furthermore, 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

4

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).
A defendant also may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his or
her subordinates on a theory of respondeat superior. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 676 (2009). Furthermore,
when a plaintiff sues an official under Bivens or § 1983 for
conduct “arising from his or her superintendent
responsibilities,” the plaintiff must plausibly plead and
eventually prove not only that the official’s subordinates
violated the Constitution, but that the official by virtue of his
own conduct and state of mind did so as well.
Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
677). Therefore, in order to succeed in a § 1983 suit, (the proper jurisdiction to address
constitutional violation claims), against a government official for conduct that arises out
of his or her supervisory responsibilities, a plaintiff must allege and demonstrate that:
“(1) the defendant promulgated, created, implemented or possessed responsibility for
the continued operation of a policy that (2) caused the complained of constitutional
harm, and (3) acted with the state of mind required to establish the alleged
constitutional deprivation.” Id. at 1199. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall
file a Second 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, to be used in filing the
Second Amended Complaint. It is
5

FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the
time allowed the Court will dismiss the action without further notice.
DATED May 1, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
/s Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

6