United States District Court, D. Colorado
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Gordon
P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge
This
matter comes before the Court on the amended Prisoner
Complaint (ECF No. 11)[1] filed pro se by Plaintiff on May
7, 2019. The matter has been referred to this Magistrate
Judge for recommendation (ECF No. 14.)[2]
The
Court must construe the amended Prisoner Complaint and other
papers filed by Plaintiff liberally because he 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.
The
Court has reviewed the filings to date. The Court has
considered the entire case file, the applicable law, and is
sufficiently advised in the premises. This Magistrate Judge
respectfully recommends that the amended Prisoner Complaint
be dismissed.
I.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
is an inmate at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at
Pueblo, Colorado (“CMHIP”). Plaintiff initiated
this action by filing pro se a Prisoner Complaint
(ECF No. 1) asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and a number of other federal statutes. On April 5,
2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint because he failed to provide a short and plain
statement of any claims showing he is entitled to relief. As
noted above, the amended Prisoner Complaint was filed on May
7, 2019. Although Plaintiff has not used the District of
Colorado's current Prisoner Complaint pleading form, the
Court will not require him to cure that deficiency.
The
amended Prisoner Complaint does not provide a clear statement
of Plaintiff's claims and does not comply with the
pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The twin purposes of a pleading 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);
see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492
F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that 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
requirements of Rule 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.” Furthermore, 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. As a result, prolix, vague, or
unintelligible pleadings violate the requirements of Rule 8.
Plaintiff
asserts eight claims in the amended Prisoner Complaint, one
against each Defendant. He alleges generally that he has
suffered various injuries because unspecified medications
have been forcibly administered without an appropriate
medical diagnosis or court order. In claims one through
three, he contends former Colorado Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) Executive Director Rick Raemisch and two
DOC psychiatrists, Joan Konprivinakar and Susan Meeker, were
deliberately indifferent from 2009 to 2017 when they ordered
prison officials to forcibly administer medications without a
court order that caused injuries “including damages to
his brain, eyes, liver, pancreas, kidneys, and from the side
effects [Plaintiff] received diabeties [sic], neurapaty
[sic], & high blood pressure, including hair loss.”
(ECF No. 11 at pp.10, 11, & 12.) Plaintiff contends in
claims four and five that Denver County Jail Warden Diggins
and a Denver County Jail psychiatrist, Sasha Rai, were
deliberately indifferent from 2011 to 2019 when they ordered
jail officials to forcibly administer medications without a
court order that caused injuries “including damages, to
his brain, eyes, liver, pancreas, kidneys, and from the side
effects [Plaintiff] received diabeties [sic], neurapaty
[sic], & high blood pressure, including hair loss.”
(ECF No. 11 at pp.13, 14.) In claims six through eight,
Plaintiff contends Robert Werthwein and two CMHIP
psychiatrists, Dawn Dawson and Lennart Abel, were
deliberately indifferent from 2018 to 2019 when they ordered
CMHIP officials to forcibly administer medications without a
court order that caused injuries “including damages, to
his brain, eyes, liver, pancreas, kidneys, and from the side
effects [Plaintiff] received diabeties [sic], neurapaty
[sic], & high blood pressure, including hair loss.”
(ECF No. 11 at pp.15, 16, & 17.) Plaintiff seeks damages
as relief.
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); see also United
States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.
1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles
buried in briefs.”); Ketchum v. Cruz, 775
F.Supp. 1399, 1403 (D. Colo. 1991) (vague and conclusory
allegations that his rights have been violated does not
entitle a pro se pleader to a day in court
regardless of how liberally the pleadings are construed),
aff'd, 961 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992).
“[I]n 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.
Despite
the specific instructions provided by the Court in the order
directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint,
Plaintiff's repetitive and conclusory assertions that he
has suffered various injuries because Defendants ordered
other individuals to administer unspecified medications at
unspecified times dating back to 2009 do not provide a clear
and concise statement of any claims showing he is entitled to
relief. As noted above, Plaintiff must allege specific facts
that “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, 492 F.3d at 1163.
Because
Plaintiff fails to provide Defendants fair notice of the
specific claims being asserted against them and the specific
factual allegations that support each claim, the amended
Prisoner Complaint does not comply with the pleading
requirements of Rule 8.
II.
...