Petrie v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections et al

Filing 5

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 7/13/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01467-GPG
MICHAEL PETRIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
RICK RAEMISCH, Exec. Director,
TRAVIS TRANI, Warden, CSP,
CLINICAL SERVICES CHIEF OF OPERATIONS,
OFFICE OF OFFENDER SERVICES, and
ANGEL MEDINA,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Michael Petrie, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department
of Corrections at the Colorado State Penitentiary in Cañon City, Colorado. Mr. Petrie
has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
seeks damages and injunctive relief.
The court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Petrie 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. For the reasons stated
below, Mr. Petrie will be ordered to file an amended complaint.
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 Rule 8.
Mr. Petrie asserts two claims for relief in the Prisoner Complaint. He first claims
he has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishm ent because prison officials have
failed to protect him from assaults by other offenders. He alleges in his second claim
that he has been denied adequate care for his serious medical and mental health
needs. The court construes both claims as Eighth Amendment claims. However, Mr.
Petrie fails to set forth a short and plain statement of his Eighth Amendment claims
showing he is entitled to relief because he does not specify against which Defendant or
Defendants he is asserting his claims and he fails to allege specific facts that
demonstrate his constitutional rights have been violated. In order to state an arguable
2

Eighth Amendment claim, Mr. Petrie must allege facts that demonstrate 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 (10 th Cir. 2008), or deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976).
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.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847.
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
conclusory allegations.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
Mr. Petrie must identify 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

3

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”). Mr. Petrie is advised that § 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).
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 superv isory
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. Petrie 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. Petrie 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. Petrie fails to file an amended complaint that
complies with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.

4

DATED July 13, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher

United States Magistrate Judge

5