Martinez v. DeCesaro , 427 F. App'x 660 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    June 24, 2011
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PAUL L. MARTINEZ,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                           No. 11-1130
    ANTHONY A. DECESARO, Grievance                     (D.C. No. 1:10-cv-02472-ZLW)
    Officer, individually and in his official                    (D. Colo.)
    capacity; RAE TIMME, Warden, Fremont
    Correctional Facility, individually and in
    her official capacity; SUSAN JONES,
    Warden, CSP and CCF, individually and
    in her official capacity,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
    appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore,
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
    persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff/appellant Paul Martinez, a Colorado state prisoner currently incarcerated
    at Colorado’s Centennial Correctional Facility (CCF), appeals the dismissal of his civil
    rights complaint which he filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The
    district court, after providing Martinez the opportunity to file an amended complaint,
    dismissed Martinez’s amended complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
    Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
    I
    Martinez filed a pro se civil rights complaint naming as defendants the warden of
    Colorado’s Fremont Correctional Facility (FCF), the warden of CCF and the Colorado
    State Penitentiary (CSP), and a Colorado prison grievance officer. After Martinez filed
    his initial complaint and an amended complaint,1 a United States Magistrate Judge
    ordered him to file a second amended complaint because the first amended complaint did
    not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Among other things, the magistrate judge directed
    Martinez to “allege, simply and concisely, his specific claims for relief, including the
    specific rights that allegedly have been violated and the specific acts of each defendant
    that allegedly violated [his] rights,” and to “assert personal participation by each named
    defendant.” ROA at 137. Martinez filed a second amended complaint that was somewhat
    shorter than, but otherwise substantially similar to, his first two complaints.
    1
    As regards its content, Martinez’s first amended complaint was virtually
    identical to his initial complaint. Martinez filed an amended complaint because he
    believed his initial complaint failed to satisfy formatting requirements.
    2
    Martinez’s second amended complaint described, among other things: Martinez’s
    lengthy medical history and treatment within the Colorado prison system, beginning in
    1982; disciplinary “write ups” that Martinez alleges resulted from false accusations and
    unspecified denials of due process; overcrowding at FCF and CSP and consequent
    intermittent denial of adequate shower, recreation, and meal time to inmates; changes in
    pricing of and/or distribution of profits from canteen items at Colorado prisons;
    confiscation of Martinez’s personal possessions; problems accessing or using prison
    libraries; and issues relating to the processing and/or denial of Martinez’s grievances.
    Martinez also made vague references to discrimination based on his race, religious and
    moral beliefs, and retaliation based on his prior complaints relating to prison conditions.
    Martinez sought the following relief: specific medical treatment, including several
    surgeries; expungement of disciplinary write ups he received in 2006 through 2008;
    reduction of the inmate populations at FCF and CSP and provision of job assignments for
    all inmates who wish to work; restoration of various items of his property; an order
    compelling CSP to sell specific hygiene products in the prison canteen; and an
    investigation into abuses of power by Colorado prison staff. Martinez also sought
    unspecified “punitive” damages.
    The district court determined that Martinez failed to remedy the defects in his
    complaint identified by the magistrate judge and dismissed the second amended
    complaint without prejudice.
    3
    II
    We review the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 for an abuse of discretion.2 See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E.
    Agents, at Arapahoe Cnty. Justice Ctr., 
    492 F.3d 1158
    , 1161 (10th Cir. 2007). A district
    court may dismiss an action without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8 “without
    attention to any particular procedures.” 
    Id. at 1162.
    As Martinez is a pro se litigant, we
    construe his pleadings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520 (1972) (per
    curiam). However, Martinez’s pro se status does not excuse him from complying with
    the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ogden v. San
    Juan Cnty., 
    32 F.3d 452
    , 455 (10th Cir. 1994).
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a pleading set forth a “short and
    plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This
    requirement serves two purposes: it informs defendants of the claims asserted so that they
    may respond to the complaint, and it “appris[es] the court of sufficient allegations to
    allow it to conclude, if the allegations are proved, that the claimant has a legal right to
    relief.” Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n of Kan.,
    
    891 F.2d 1473
    , 1480 (10th Cir. 1989).
    We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
    2
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an
    action for failure to comply with a rule of civil procedure, including Rule 8. Rule 41 “has
    long been interpreted to permit courts . . . to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s
    failure to . . . comply with the rules of civil procedure . . . .” Olsen v. Mapes, 
    333 F.3d 1199
    , 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003).
    4
    Martinez’s second amended complaint. Martinez contends that the complicated nature of
    his claims requires an extensive recitation of facts. However, Martinez’s lengthy, overly-
    detailed, and complex narrative and inclusion of his opinions about medical treatment and
    prison administration make it extremely difficult to discern the facts and law that may
    support any right to recovery, and to discern exactly what recovery Martinez seeks.
    Among other difficulties, we are unable to connect Martinez’s prayer for relief with much
    of the body of his second amended complaint. Martinez requests some relief that appears
    unrelated to the factual allegations that he makes and, conversely, Martinez makes many
    allegations of wrongdoing or mistreatment that would not be remedied by the relief he
    seeks. Further, Martinez’s second amended complaint fails to describe each named
    defendant’s personal participation in the alleged wrongs, as the magistrate judge’s order
    advised him it should. Martinez’s vague allegation that the defendants “were personally
    involved if indirectly through staff who reported directly to them,” ROA at 147, is neither
    clear nor sufficient. A plaintiff cannot establish liability under § 1983 merely by
    “‘show[ing] the defendant was in charge of other state actors who actually committed the
    [constitutional] violation. Instead, . . . the plaintiff must establish a deliberate, intentional
    act by the supervisor to violate constitutional rights.’” Dodds v. Richardson, 
    614 F.3d 1185
    , 1195 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Serna v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 
    455 F.3d 1146
    , 1151
    (10th Cir. 2006)). For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion when it dismissed Martinez’s second amended complaint without prejudice for
    failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
    5
    III
    The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. Martinez’s motion to proceed in
    forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.
    Entered for the Court
    Mary Beck Briscoe
    Chief Judge
    6