Jones v. Frantz et al
Filing
7
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/01/2013. (skl)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00370-BNB
ALEXISIUS JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAULA FRANTZ, Chief Medical Doctor of DCOC,
TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director of CDOC,
JANICE EADS, Medical at El Paso CJC,
DR. AL-ABDULJALIL, Medical at El Paso CJC,
MRS. JOANN STOCK,
JOSEPH G. FORTUNATO,
DR. LINDSEY E. FISHDEPENA,
MELISSA FILES,
SUSAN TIONA,
DEBORAH SHOCK, and
NURSE WALKER,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Alexisius Jones, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department
of Corrections and currently is incarcerated at the Four Mile Correctional Facility in
Cañon City, Colorado. Mr. Jones, acting pro se, initiated this action by filing a Prisoner
Complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Jones is a pro se
litigant. 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 act as a pro se litigant’s
advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Jones will be
ordered to file an Amended Complaint and assert how each properly named party
violated his constitutional rights.
Mr. Jones must show how each individual 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). A defendant may not be held liable on a theory
of respondeat superior merely because of his or her supervisory position. See Pembaur
v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479 (1986); McKee v. Heggy, 703 F.2d 479, 483
(10th Cir. 1983). A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations that they cause.
See Dodds v. Richardson, et al. ,614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (Tymkovich, J.,
concurring).
Mr. Jones has asserted personal participation by all named Defendants except
Tom Clements. Mr. Jones must amend the Complaint to state what Tom Clements,
along with all other named defendants, did to him, when the action occurred, how the
action harmed him, and what specific legal right he believes Tom Clements and other
named defendants violated. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158,
1163 (10th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Jones file within thirty days from the date of this Order an
Amended Complaint consistent with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Jones 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. Jones fails within the time allowed to file an
2
Amended Complaint that complies with this Order the Court will proceed to address the
merits of the claims as asserted in the original Complaint. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that process shall not issue until further order of
the Court.
DATED March 1, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
