Richert v. Mesa County Detention Facility et al
Filing
6
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 6/22/15. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01201-GPG
TERRELL L. RICHERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
MESA COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY,
MESA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT., and
MESA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICER SELLERS,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff initiated this action on June 8, 2015, by filing a Prisoner’s Motion and
Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Subsequently, Plaintiff
filed an Prisoner Complaint pursuant to the June 9, 2015 Order to Cure Def iciencies.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must construe Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally because he 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 should not act
as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. Plaintiff will be
directed to amend this Complaint for the following reasons.
Although Plaintiff has asserted claims against Defendant Sellers, neither the
Mesa County Detention Facility nor the Mesa County Sheriff’s Department are separate
entities from Mesa County, and, therefore, are not persons under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Stump v. Gates, 777 F. Supp. 808, 814-16 (D. Colo. 1991), aff'd, 986 F.2d 1429
(10th Cir. 1993). Any claims asserted against the Mesa County Detention Facility or the
Mesa County Sheriff’s Department must be considered as asserted against Mesa
County.
Municipalities and municipal entities, such as the Mesa County, are not liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely because their employees inflict injury on a plaintiff.
Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Hinton v. City
of Elwood, Kan., 997 F.2d 774, 782 (10th Cir. 1993). To establish liability, a plaintiff
must show that a policy or custom exists and that there is a direct causal link
between the policy or custom and the injury alleged. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris,
489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989) (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff file within thirty days from the date of this Order an
Amended Complaint that contains all requested information, asserts all claims, and is in
keeping with the above directives. 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 Amended Complaint. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails within the time allowed to file an
Amended Complaint that complies with this Order the Court will dismiss this action
without further notice. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that process shall not issue until further order of
the Court.
DATED June 22, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher
2
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?