Opinion ID: 168329
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sheriff K ennard’s motion to dismiss

Text: The district court dismissed the claim against Sheriff K ennard because M r. Johnson failed to allege that he personally participated in or directed the violation of M r. Johnson’s constitutional rights or “‘had actual knowledge of the violation and acquiesced it its continuance.’” R., Doc. 31 at 4 (quoting Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 995 (10th Cir. 1996)). M r. Johnson has not contested the dismissal as to Sheriff Kennard, and we affirm that ruling without discussion. However, M r. Johnson does state on appeal that “jail correctional officers harmed [him].” Aplt. Opening Br. at 3 (page numbered “2”). Based on our review of the record, we believe that the district court construed this claim too narrowly. The record reveals the following. In the caption of his complaint, M r. Johnson listed one of the defendants as “Salt Lake County Jail and offic[i]als.” R., Doc. 3 at 1. He also identified the third defendant as Sheriff Kennard and “officers [sic] staff,” id. at 2, and claimed he was “at risk of death by . . . jailers [sic] staff,” id. at 4. In his response to the m otion for a more definite statement, he alleged that the “jail staff . . . harmed me,” id., Doc. 21 at 4, and it appears he attempted to identify one of the members of the jail staff directly involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation, although the name is -7- illegible, see id. at 2. As the district court noted in its dismissal order, M r. Johnson’s response to the motion to dismiss contained “numerous allegations against unidentified jail officials,” including that they used pepper spray and physical force on him, unfairly punished him, denied him telephone access to a lawyer, denied him access to a bail bondsman, limited his showers, and confined him with someone in jail for murder. Id., Doc. 31 at 3 (emphasis added). M r. Johnson also stated that he can prove he was unjustly punished by the sheriff’s deputies on more than one occasion. See id., Doc. 25 at 3. The district court implicitly treated M r. Johnson’s response to Sheriff Kennard’s motion to dismiss in part as an amendment to the complaint, adding new allegations. Those allegations suggest potential constitutional violations that are different than or in addition to the unlawful detention or false imprisonment claims identified in the district court’s original characterization of this claim and that are directed at defendants other than Sheriff Kennard, namely, the unidentified jail officials. Compare id., Doc. 31 at 3 (considering new allegations) with id., Doc. 8 at 2 (construing complaint). However, the district court did not construe the new allegations as stating a claim against the unidentified jail officials but only as a claim against Sheriff Kennard. Under the circumstances, this was in error. On remand, M r. Johnson should be given an appropriate opportunity to amend his complaint to name as defendants to this claim the particular jail officials he believes violated his rights. See Farrell, -8- 12 F. App’x at 792 (quoting Dayse, 894 F.2d at 174). W e express no opinion on the merits of this claim.