Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20141111_0002564.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 19:42:35
Document Index: 102936422

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Dudley v. Nestor
MARVIN DUDLEY, Plaintiff,v.SHERIFF TOM NESTOR, Defendant
Marvin Dudley, Plaintiff, Pro se, Hugo, CO.
Plaintiff, Marvin Dudley, currently is detained at the Lincoln County Jail in Hugo, Colorado. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se, a Prisoner Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's § 1915 Motion.
The Court must construe Plaintiff's Complaint liberally because he is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (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, Plaintiff will be directed to file an Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff also is required to assert personal participation by a named defendant in the alleged constitutional violation. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). To establish personal participation, Plaintiff must show in the Cause of Action section of the complaint form how the named individual caused the deprivation of a federal right. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (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 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates on a theory of respondeat superior. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (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.
Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677). Therefore, 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.
Finally, Plaintiff cannot maintain claims against prison officials or administrators on the basis that they denied his grievances. The " denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983." Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009); see also Whitington v. Ortiz, No. 07-1425, 307 F.App'x. 179, 193 (10th Cir. Jan. 13, 2009) (unpublished) (stating that " the denial of the grievances alone is insufficient to establish personal participation in the alleged constitutional violations.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Davis v. Ark. Valley Corr. Facility, No. 02-1486, 99 F.App'x. 838, 843 (10th Cir. May 20, 2004) (unpublished) (sending " correspondence [to high-ranking prison official] outlining [a] complaint . . . without more, does not sufficiently implicate the [supervisory official] under § 1983"). Summarily ignoring Plaintiff's grievances, as Plaintiff asserts jail staff has done, does not indicate Defendant Nestor participated in the act or that Plaintiff's grievances were completely ignored but were only denied.
Plaintiff, therefore, is directed to amend the Complaint and state how Defendant Nestor's decision to place handles on the outside of cell doors and his failure to ensure the integrity of the jail's grievance process violated a federal constitutional right, which is required in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Accordingly, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint that complies with this Order within the time allowed, and to the Court's satisfaction, the Complaint and action will be dismissed without further notice.