Daily v. The Municipality Of, 10th Cir. (2004)
Daily v. The Municipality Of, 10th Cir. (2004)
TENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 6 2004
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 04-1038
(D.C. No. 03-ES-1764)
(D. Colorado)
-2-
Claims. On September 11, 2003, the magistrate judge determined that the filed
documents were deficient, but ordered the clerk to commence a civil action. The
magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to submit a copy of his prisoners trust-fund
statement and a complaint within 30 days, and ordered the clerk to mail Plaintiff
two copies of the courts Prisoner Complaint form. Local Civil Rule 8.2 for the
District of Colorado requires pro se prisoners to use the forms established by this
court to file an action. D. Colo. L. Civ. R. 8.2(A).
Plaintiff timely filed the certified trust-fund statement and a 63-page
complaint, but failed to file the complaint on the court-approved form. The
magistrate judge recognized that Plaintiff incorporated some of the information
required by the form in his complaint but that it was not all inclusive. R. Doc.
11. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to incorporate the information required on page
seven of the court-approved form concerning previous lawsuits and exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Plaintiffs complaint also identified some defendants in
the text who were not listed in the caption and referred to some defendants
differently in the text than in the caption. In his Second Order to Cure
Deficiency, filed on October 21, 2003, the magistrate judge once again gave
Plaintiff 30 days to file his complaint on the court-approved form, warning that
failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.
-3-
-4-
Further, Plaintiff cannot claim that his complaint provided the court with
the same information required by the court-approved Prisoner Complaint form.
Nowhere in Plaintiffs 63-page complaint does he disclose whether he has filed
another lawsuit in federal or state court while incarcerated. Nor does Plaintiff
describe in his complaint any formal grievance procedure at his institution or
allege that he has exhausted his available administrative remedies. It is not
unreasonable that the local rules require such information for prisoner complaints.
First, a prisoner ordinarily cannot proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.
1915, as Plaintiff wished to do, if the prisoner, while incarcerated, has brought
three or more claims that have been dismissed as frivolous or malicious, or for
failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Second, 42 U.S.C. 1997
precludes prisoners from bringing 1983 actions until they exhaust their
administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. 1997(e)(a). As we held in Steele v. Federal
Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 1212 (10th Cir. 2003), a prisoners 1983
complaint that does not plead exhaustion of remedies is subject to dismissal.
Additionally, since Plaintiff does not list defendants consistently in his
caption and in the body of his complaint, it is impossible to tell whether he is
suing them in their official or individual capacities. For instance, the caption of
Plaintiffs complaint names John Suthern [sic] and Ken Salazar. R. Doc. 7 at
1. But in the section of his complaint in which Plaintiff provides the names and
-5-
-6-