Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01345-BNB
06-12-2012
CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. JOYCE CROUNK (Individual and Official Capacity), Acting Medical Staff Supervisor, and NOVA WALKER (Individual and Official Capacity), Acting Nurse, Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
At the time he initiated this action, Plaintiff, Christopher Martinez, was a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) who was incarcerated at the correctional facility in Canon City, Colorado. It appears that since the time of filling, Mr. Martinez has been released from the custody of the DOC. Mr. Martinez initiated this action by filing pro se a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis without payment of an initial partial filing fee.
The Court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Martinez 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. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Martinez will be ordered to file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
The Court has reviewed the Prisoner Complaint and finds that 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 Rule 8.
Mr. Martinez asserts two claims for relief. In his first claim, he alleges that "he has not received the proper medical care/treatment for his upper body extremities disabilities to include his back . . . ." Complaint at 4. In his second claim, he complains that the named Defendants "maliciously with evil intent" ignored his medical needs. Id. at 5. Mr. Martinez's claims are vague and conclusory. He does not explain the nature of his physical disabilities or injuries. It is not clear what medical attention Mr. Martinez required but did not receive from defendants, and he does not demonstrate that he has suffered from any actual injury as a result of the defendants' alleged failures.
In order to state a claim in federal court, Mr. Martinez "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). 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).
In addition, § 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); 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."). Therefore, Mr. Martinez should name as defendants in his amended complaint only those persons that he contends actually violated his federal constitutional rights.
Mr. Martinez may be naming a supervisory official as a defendant. However, personal participation is an essential allegation in a civil rights action. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). To establish personal participation, Mr. Martinez must show that each defendant 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). With respect to supervisory officials, a defendant 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.See Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677). In order to succeed in a § 1983 suit 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. Therefore, Mr. Martinez will be directed to file an amended complaint that clearly and concisely sets forth specific facts in support of each claim, and alleges the personal participation of each named defendant. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Christopher Martinez, file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, an amended Prisoner Complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) as discussed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Martinez shall obtain the Court-approved Prisoner Complaint form along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Martinez fails to file an amended Prisoner Complaint that complies with this order within the time allowed, the complaint and the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED June 12, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge