Cooper v. Colorado Springs Police Dep. et al
Filing
8
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 5/19/15. (morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00975-GPG
MAURICE DOUGLAS COOPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE DEP.,
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, and
STATE OF COLORADO,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Maurice Douglas Cooper, is an inmate at the El Paso County Criminal
Justice Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mr. Cooper has filed pro se a Prisoner
Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks dam ages as relief.
The court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Cooper 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. Cooper 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. Cooper fails to provide an address
for any of the Defendants. Mr. Cooper 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. Cooper alleges he was assaulted by two Colorado Springs police officers on
February 12, 2015. Construing the Prisoner Complaint liberally, it appears that Mr.
Cooper may intend to assert constitutional claims against the police officers who
allegedly assaulted him. If so, he must name those officers as Defendants in the
caption of the amended complaint he will be ordered to file. Mr. Cooper also must
allege specific facts that demonstrate how each officer personally participated in the
asserted constitutional violation. See Henry v. Storey, 658 F.3d 1235, 1241 (10 th Cir.
2011) (allegations of “personal participation in the specific constitutional violation
2
complained of [are] essential”). Mr. Cooper may use fictitious names, such as John
and Jane Doe, if he does not know the real names of the officers who allegedly
assaulted him, but he must provide sufficient information about each defendant so that
he or she can be identified for purposes of service. As noted above, Mr. Cooper also
must provide an address where each Defendant may be served.
With respect to the entities named as Defendants in the caption of the Prisoner
Complaint, Mr. Cooper fails to provide a short and plain statement of any constitutional
claims showing he is entitled to relief. Mr. Cooper’s claims for damages against the
State of Colorado are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). Mr. Cooper’s claims against the Colorado
Springs Police Department, which the court construes as being asserted against the
City of Colorado Springs, lack merit in the absence of specific facts that demonstrate 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 (10th Cir. 2010).
In summary, Mr. Cooper must identify who he is suing, the specific 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
3
the defendant violated”). 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 (10 th Cir. 2005). Finally, “[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.” New Home Appliance
Ctr., Inc., v. Thompson, 250 F.2d 881, 883 (10 th Cir. 1957). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Cooper 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. Cooper 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. Cooper fails to file an amended complaint that
complies with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED May 19, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?