Robbins v. City of Manitou Springs, 1:14-cv-02739

Plaintiff Demian Robbins, a pro se inmate, filed a Prisoner Complaint naming the City of Manitou Springs, the Manitou Springs Police Department, several officers and officials, and the State of Colorado, seeking damages.
The court reviewed the filing for compliance with federal pleading rules and pro se standards and found multiple deficiencies in form and substance.
Robbins did not provide addresses for each defendant, omitted a clear statement of the statutory grounds for federal jurisdiction, and did not identify which federal rights were violated or which defendants committed specific acts when.
Robbins labeled his claims as Bivens actions, but the complaint did not allege claims against federal officials; the court noted § 1983 is the proper vehicle for claims against state actors.
The court explained that the State of Colorado is immune under the Eleventh Amendment and that the Manitou Springs Police Department is not a suable entity separate from the City; municipal liability requires a showing of a municipal policy or custom harming the plaintiff.
The court ordered Robbins to file an amended complaint within 30 days using the court-approved form, warning that failure to cure the defects would result in dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdictional basis	Robbins pleads Bivens for damages (seeks federal relief)	Defendants (and court) note no federal officials named, so Bivens inapplicable	Court: Robbins must identify proper statutory basis; likely § 1983 for state actors; state claims must show statutory authority for federal jurisdiction
Failure to state a claim / Rule 8 pleading	Robbins alleges violations of rights but gives vague, conclusory facts	Defendants implicitly argue claims lack specific factual allegations linking each defendant to violations	Court: Complaint violates Rule 8 and 8(d)(1); must plead who, what, when, how for each constitutional claim; ordered to amend
Defendant identification / serviceability	Robbins listed defendants but omitted addresses and specific roles	Defendants cannot be served properly without complete addresses and clear identification	Court: Robbins must provide complete addresses and identify each defendant's actions so service and defense are possible
Immunity / suability of entities	Robbins sued State and Police Department seeking damages	State entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; police dept. not a separate suable "person" under § 1983	Court: State of Colorado cannot be sued for damages; Manitou Springs Police Department is not a proper defendant; claims against City require municipal liability allegations (policy or custom)

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints must be construed liberally)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (court not advocate for pro se litigant; pleading standards)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (creates cause of action against federal officials for constitutional violations)
Dry v. United States, 235 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2000) (Bivens applies only to federal officials)
Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (1999) (§ 1983 provides federal cause of action against state actors)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states are protected by the Eleventh Amendment; limitations on suing states)
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (complaint must explain what each defendant did, when, and what right was violated)
Henry v. Storey, 658 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) (personal participation in alleged constitutional violation is essential)
Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dept., 717 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2013) (standards for municipal liability under § 1983)