Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Snyder v. Spilde

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 9, 2016

KELBY SNYDER, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER C. SPILDE, 2 OFFICERS IDK THEIR NAMES, OFFICER GOMEZ, A SGT., and OFFICER BEAULER, Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Gordon P. Gallagher United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, Kelby Snyder, is an inmate currently detained at the Denver County Jail. Mr. Snyder has filed pro se an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of his constitutional rights.

The court must construe the Amended Complaint liberally because Mr. Snyder 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. Snyder will be directed to file a Second Amended Complaint.

I. Allegations of the Amended Complaint.

Mr. Snyder alleges the following facts in the Amended Complaint.

On December 3, 2014, Defendant Spilde verbally harassed Plaintiff by telling him to “wrap it up muther [sic] fucker.” (ECF No. 13, at 4-5). He further alleges that Defendant Two Unknown Officers “grabed [sic] my arms and stretched my arms out wide and were twisting. They said you keep it up we’ll slam you on your face right here.” (Id., at 5). He asserts claims for use of excessive force and harassment based on this incident.

On January 20, 2015, Defendant Gomez took Mr. Snyder’s “legal mail/documentation” off the food cart and refused to return it to him. (Id., at 6). He further alleges that an unknown officer “threw me against the wall” and verbally harassed him. (Id.). He asserts claims for use of excessive force, harassment, and “violation of my right to have legal documentation” based on this incident.

“About the month of Nov. during the hours of 4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.” Defendant Beauler “was twisting my fingers” and verbally harassing him while she arrested him. (Id., at 7). He further contends that she placed him in the police car without air for an hour. (Id.). He asserts claims for use of excessive force and harassment based on this incident.

On October 21, 2015, Mr. Snyder was assaulted by his “bunky” and that Defendant Unknown Sergeant said he “was not allowed to press charges.” (Id., at 8). He further alleges that Defendant Unknown Sergeant telephoned Mr. Snyder’s lawyer but the call was not accepted. (Id.). Mr. Snyder was then “moved to the hole.” (Id.). He asserts that he was “denied my rights when I was taken out for a assault/fight.”

For relief, Mr. Snyder requests compensatory damages.

II. Deficiencies in the Amended Complaint

Several deficiencies remain in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s allegations of police misconduct, harassment, excessive force, and violation of his civil rights are vague and conclusory. See Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d 286, 289-90 (10th Cir.1993) (vague, conclusory allegations are insufficient to form the basis for a § 1983 cause of action); Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110 (same); Ketchum v. Cruz, 775 F.Supp. 1399, 1403 (D. Colo. 1991), aff’d 961 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (same). However, because the amended pleading has improved, the Court will allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend in order to state an arguable claim for relief against the named Defendants.

Mr. Snyder’s allegations of harassment against the named Defendants are insufficient. Verbal threats without more, do not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1524 (10th Cir.1992); see also Alvarez v. Gonzales, No. 05-6129, 155 F.App'x 393, 396 (10th Cir. Nov. 10, 2005) (unpublished) (“Mere verbal threats or harassment do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation unless they create ‘terror of instant and unexpected death.’”) (quoting Northington, 973 F.2d at 1524).

Moreover, Mr. Snyder’s allegations against Defendant Two Unknown Officers for using excessive force are insufficient. See e.g., Norton v. The City of Marietta, 432 F.3d 1145, 1156 (10th Cir. 2005) (grabbing and twisting of inmate’s neck was not sufficiently objectively harmful enough to establish an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim); Reed v. Smith, 1999 WL 345492, at *4 (10th Cir. 1999) (inmate’s allegations that prison officials grabbed him, tried to ram him into a wall and dragged him while walking him through the prisoner were insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim). “[T]he use of excessive force against a prisoner can violate the Eighth Amendment [even] when the inmate does not suffer serious injury.” Smith v. Cochran, 339 F.3d 1205, 1212 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)); Wilkins v. Gaddy, __U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1176 (2010). The “ core judicial inquiry” as to an excessive force claim is “ whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Id. “Ordinarily, an excessive force claim involves two prongs: (1) an objective prong that asks if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation, and (2) a subjective prong under which the plaintiff must show that the officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Smith, 339 F.3d at 1212 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “An action by a prison guard may be malevolent yet not amount to cruel and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.