Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Emanuel Pittman, a prisoner of the Colorado Department of Corrections, filed a 42 U.S. Code 1983 claim against Dean Williams and Jane Doe LNP alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed Pittman’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because he failed to plead an adequate factual basis for his Eighth Amendment claim. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Pittman’s claim and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis.
At the times material to his claim, Pittman was in the CDOC custody serving a term of imprisonment. CDOC officials transferred Pittman from the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility to the Sterling Correctional Facility. Under CDOC policy, when officials transfer an inmate among facilities, and that transfer results in a change of custody level, the inmate cannot possess shoes with shoestrings.
In the course of Pittman’s transfer, CDOC staff confiscated his lace-up tennis shoes. Pittman objected and explained to SCF staff he suffered from a degenerative spinal condition and required the shoes. SCF staff instructed him to file a medical kite. According to a footnote, a medical kite is a request for health care services, according to CDOC. Pittman provided the medical kite to officials, who he alleges, never responded. Pittman alleged he suffered from swollen ankles, lower back pain and neck pain because officials confiscated his shoes. SCF staff returned the shoes after approximately two months.
Pittman sued Williams and Jane Doe LNP in their individual capacities for injunctive and monetary relief. A magistrate judge recommended the district court dismiss the complaint. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Pittman’s request for injunctive relief because the precedent requires plaintiffs to sue defendants in their official capacity to seek injunctive relief (see Brown v. Montoya and Hafer v. Melo). The district court dismissed Pittman’s request for monetary relief on the grounds Pittman failed to comply with Rule 8’s requirement that he provide a sufficient factual basis to demonstrate a plausible claim of deliberate indifference (see Farmer v. Brennan and Hudson v. Palmer). Pittman appealed.
After evaluation, the 10th Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.