From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blackfeather v. Blackfeather

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Aug 5, 2014
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01840-BNB (D. Colo. Aug. 5, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 14-cv-01840-BNB

08-05-2014

MICAH JAMES BLACKFEATHER, Plaintiff, v. EDWIN FRANCIS BLACKFEATHER, Defendant.


ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Micah James Blackfeather, is being detained at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, Colorado. Mr. Blackfeather has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 12). The court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Blackfeather 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 be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. Mr. Blackfeather 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. Blackfeather fails to provide an address for Defendant. Mr. Blackfeather must provide a complete address so that Defendant 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 (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). 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 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 the requirements of Rule 8.

Mr. Blackfeather alleges that he is asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which "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); see also Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992) ("[T]he purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails."). However, Mr. Blackfeather fails to allege facts that demonstrate he has been deprived of any federal rights or that Defendant is a state actor. As a result, Mr. Blackfeather fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing he is entitled to relief.

Mr. Blackfeather must identify, clearly and concisely, the specific claims he is asserting, the specific facts that support each asserted claim, and what Defendant did that allegedly violated his federal rights. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th 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 the defendant violated"). 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). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Mr. Blackfeather file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, an amended complaint that complies with this order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Blackfeather 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. Blackfeather fails within the time allowed to file an amended complaint that complies with this order as directed, the action will be dismissed without further notice. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the "Motion to Reduce Child Support Past Due . . ." (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.

DATED August 5, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Boyd N. Boland

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Blackfeather v. Blackfeather

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Aug 5, 2014
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01840-BNB (D. Colo. Aug. 5, 2014)
Case details for

Blackfeather v. Blackfeather

Case Details

Full title:MICAH JAMES BLACKFEATHER, Plaintiff, v. EDWIN FRANCIS BLACKFEATHER…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Aug 5, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 14-cv-01840-BNB (D. Colo. Aug. 5, 2014)