Coppinger v. Zavaras, 1:10-cv-02555

Coppinger, a Colorado state prisoner, filed a pro se Prisoner Complaint alleging constitutional rights violations and seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive relief.
The court construes pro se filings liberally but will not act as advocate for the plaintiff.
The court requires personal participation by each named defendant; liability cannot rest on supervisory status or respondeat superior.
Coppinger asserts multiple defendants but the complaint does not allege how at least two defendants personally participated in the asserted violations.
Plaintiff must allege what each defendant did, when, how it harmed her, and what rights were violated, to state a federal claim.
The court orders Coppinger to amend the complaint within 30 days, and to use the court-approved prisoner complaint form; otherwise the court may proceed to review merits without unalleged defendants and no process shall issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether all named defendants must be shown to personally participate.	Coppinger asserts defendants violated her rights through actions; all defendants should be accountable.	Personal participation is required; supervisory status alone is insufficient.	Plaintiff must allege personal participation for each defendant.
What specifics are required to state a federal claim against each defendant.	Each defendant’s conduct and its legal violation must be described with times and effects.	Claims must detail actions, times, harms, and violated rights for each defendant.	Amended complaint must specify each defendant’s actions, timing, harm, and rights implicated.
What amendment is required and timing to cure the pleading deficiencies.	Amendment should cure deficiencies with proper allegations.	Amendment is required to proceed; otherwise merits review may occur without certain defendants.	Court orders amendment within 30 days using court-approved form; failure may foreclose consideration of unalleged claims.

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings; avoid advocating for plaintiff)
Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1976) (personal participation required)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (respondeat superior not applicable to §1983 claims)
Butler v. City of Norman, 992 F.2d 1055 (10th Cir. 1993) (link between conduct and constitutional violation necessary)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (assigning liability for official policy or directs actions)
McKee v. Heggy, 703 F.2d 479 (10th Cir. 1983) (supervisor liability standards in §1983 actions)
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (pleading requirements; explain actions and rights violations)