Opinion
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00591-GPG
05-29-2015
JOSEPH R. SNYDER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT MANGUSO, RANDY LIND, RICK RAEMISCH, and COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants.
ORDER TO DISMISS IN PART AND TO DRAW IN PART
Plaintiff Joseph R. Snyder is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility in Ordway, Colorado. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Prisoner Complaint in which he requested to be released from prison on a special need parole and money damages. On March 24, 2015, the Court directed Mr. Snyder to cure certain deficiencies by either filing an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the execution of his sentence or a prisoner complaint challenging the conditions of his confinement.
In response to the March 24 Order, Mr. Snyder submitted a § 2241 Application. The Court reviewed the § 2241 Application, found that it failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and entered an order on May 1, 2015, that directed Mr. Snyder to file an Amended Application. Rather than comply with May 1, 2015 Order, Mr. Snyder, on May 26, 2015, opted to file a Prisoner Complaint. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher reviewed the Complaint, found that it was properly filed, granted Mr. Snyder leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and determined that the Court should proceed with this action as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court, therefore, will proceed to review the merits of the May 26, 2015 Prisoner Complaint as follows.
The Court construes the Complaint liberally because Plaintiff 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 cannot act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the action will be dismissed in part and drawn in part to a presiding judge and when applicable to a magistrate judge.
Plaintiff asserts that he suffers from a multitude of ailments, which Defendant Robert Manguso has failed to properly treat in violation of Plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Colorado statutes. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants Rick Raemisch and Randy Lind are aware of the inadequate medical treatment he receives, but they have refused to direct Defendant Manguso to provide the proper treatment. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages.
Defendant Colorado Department of Corrections will be dismissed for the following reasons. Any claim against Defendant Colorado Department of Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). "It is well established that absent an unmistakable waiver by the state of its Eleventh Amendment immunity, or an unmistakable abrogation of such immunity by Congress, the amendment provides absolute immunity from suit in federal courts for states and their agencies." Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dep't of Mental Health, 41 F.3d 584, 588 (10th Cir. 1994).
Although the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a federal court action so long as the plaintiff seeks in substance only prospective relief and not retrospective relief for alleged violations of federal law, Plaintiff must assert a claim for prospective relief against individual state officers, which Plaintiff has done. Verizon Maryland v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002) (quoting Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 296 (1997)); Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Colorado Department of Corrections is dismissed as an improper party to this action. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint as asserted against remaining Defendants shall be drawn to a presiding judge and when applicable to a magistrate judge.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 29th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court