Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 30, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court RODNEY DOUGLAS EAVES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 24-1048 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-01627-LTB-SBP) MS. KORY; JERRY ROARK; DANNY (D. Colo.) SALAZAR; MR. CHAVEZ; THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT; SUSAN WOLLERT; ANGIE TURNER; MARSHALL GRIFFITH; JANE DOE #2; JANE DOE #3,
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before EID, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.** _________________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant Rodney Douglas Eaves appeals from the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint for failure to comply with pleading requirements. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Acting pro se, Mr. Eaves brought several claims under 42
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. ** 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 ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 2
U.S.C. § 1983 against employees of the Colorado Department of Corrections
(CDOC), the Bent County Correctional Facility (BCCF), a private prison operated by
CoreCivic, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) alleging violations of his constitutional rights, specifically, the Eighth
Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process, arising from his confinement during the
COVID-19 pandemic. R. 28–32. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Background
In his amended complaint, Mr. Eaves alleged that he was forcibly relocated to
a housing unit where inmates were actively testing positive for COVID-19 and that
he contracted the disease as a result. He further alleged that he received deficient
medical care and that officials ignored his formal grievances. The magistrate judge
recommended dismissal of Mr. Eaves’s claims against CDPHE and CDOC employees
in their official capacity. The Eleventh Amendment bars all suits against the state
except those seeking prospective injunctive relief. Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236,
1255–56 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Eaves was no longer confined at BCCF when he filed
his amended complaint, so his claims for injunctive relief were moot. As to the
remaining claims, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal due to Mr. Eaves’s
failure to comply with pleading requirements. R. 60–62; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
The court reasoned that Mr. Eaves employed a “shotgun approach to pleading”
2 Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 3
without specifying how each defendant harmed him or whether the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm. R. 61–62. Over several
objections by Mr. Eaves, the district court accepted and adopted the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to
comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Discussion
We review a dismissal under Rule 41(b) for an abuse of discretion. See
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007).
Rule 8(a)(2) states that the complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Detailed allegations are
unnecessary, but the complaint must contain something more than “unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). Given Mr. Eaves’s pro se status, we construe his amended complaint
liberally. See Smith v. Allbaugh, 921 F.3d 1261, 1268 (10th Cir. 2019). We begin
with Mr. Eaves’s individual claims under the Eighth Amendment.
A. Eighth Amendment Claims
To succeed on his Eighth Amendment claims, Mr. Eaves must demonstrate
that the alleged deprivation was “sufficiently serious” and that the individual
defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Eaves’s health or safety. Farmer v.
3 Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 4
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citation omitted).1 In the medical context, prison
officials act with deliberate indifference when they fail to take reasonable measures
to abate a substantial risk of serious harm. Id. at 847. The plaintiff must demonstrate
“the prison official’s culpable state of mind” by showing the official “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Paugh v. Uintah Cnty., 47
F.4th 1139, 1156 (10th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted).
Assuming Mr. Eaves’s exposure to COVID-19 was sufficiently serious, he has
failed to adequately plead that individual officials were deliberately indifferent to this
risk. As the magistrate judge observed, the bulk of his complaint alleges actions
taken by groups of defendants without specifying each defendant’s personal role in
the alleged constitutional deprivation. “Individual liability under § 1983 must be
based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation.” Foote v.
Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416, 1423 (10th Cir. 1997).
Even when Mr. Eaves mentions specific defendants, he fails to allege why
their actions were unreasonable given the circumstances — let alone whether they
had any authority to correct the alleged constitutional deprivation in the first place.
Mr. Eaves argues that the denial of his grievances amounted to a constitutional
violation, but “denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation
of constitutional rights alleged . . . does not establish personal participation under
§ 1983.” Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009). He has not
1 We reject Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 30, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court RODNEY DOUGLAS EAVES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 24-1048 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-01627-LTB-SBP) MS. KORY; JERRY ROARK; DANNY (D. Colo.) SALAZAR; MR. CHAVEZ; THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT; SUSAN WOLLERT; ANGIE TURNER; MARSHALL GRIFFITH; JANE DOE #2; JANE DOE #3,
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before EID, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.** _________________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant Rodney Douglas Eaves appeals from the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint for failure to comply with pleading requirements. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Acting pro se, Mr. Eaves brought several claims under 42
* 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. ** 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 ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 2
U.S.C. § 1983 against employees of the Colorado Department of Corrections
(CDOC), the Bent County Correctional Facility (BCCF), a private prison operated by
CoreCivic, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) alleging violations of his constitutional rights, specifically, the Eighth
Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process, arising from his confinement during the
COVID-19 pandemic. R. 28–32. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Background
In his amended complaint, Mr. Eaves alleged that he was forcibly relocated to
a housing unit where inmates were actively testing positive for COVID-19 and that
he contracted the disease as a result. He further alleged that he received deficient
medical care and that officials ignored his formal grievances. The magistrate judge
recommended dismissal of Mr. Eaves’s claims against CDPHE and CDOC employees
in their official capacity. The Eleventh Amendment bars all suits against the state
except those seeking prospective injunctive relief. Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236,
1255–56 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Eaves was no longer confined at BCCF when he filed
his amended complaint, so his claims for injunctive relief were moot. As to the
remaining claims, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal due to Mr. Eaves’s
failure to comply with pleading requirements. R. 60–62; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
The court reasoned that Mr. Eaves employed a “shotgun approach to pleading”
2 Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 3
without specifying how each defendant harmed him or whether the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm. R. 61–62. Over several
objections by Mr. Eaves, the district court accepted and adopted the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to
comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Discussion
We review a dismissal under Rule 41(b) for an abuse of discretion. See
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007).
Rule 8(a)(2) states that the complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Detailed allegations are
unnecessary, but the complaint must contain something more than “unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). Given Mr. Eaves’s pro se status, we construe his amended complaint
liberally. See Smith v. Allbaugh, 921 F.3d 1261, 1268 (10th Cir. 2019). We begin
with Mr. Eaves’s individual claims under the Eighth Amendment.
A. Eighth Amendment Claims
To succeed on his Eighth Amendment claims, Mr. Eaves must demonstrate
that the alleged deprivation was “sufficiently serious” and that the individual
defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Eaves’s health or safety. Farmer v.
3 Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 4
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citation omitted).1 In the medical context, prison
officials act with deliberate indifference when they fail to take reasonable measures
to abate a substantial risk of serious harm. Id. at 847. The plaintiff must demonstrate
“the prison official’s culpable state of mind” by showing the official “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Paugh v. Uintah Cnty., 47
F.4th 1139, 1156 (10th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted).
Assuming Mr. Eaves’s exposure to COVID-19 was sufficiently serious, he has
failed to adequately plead that individual officials were deliberately indifferent to this
risk. As the magistrate judge observed, the bulk of his complaint alleges actions
taken by groups of defendants without specifying each defendant’s personal role in
the alleged constitutional deprivation. “Individual liability under § 1983 must be
based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation.” Foote v.
Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416, 1423 (10th Cir. 1997).
Even when Mr. Eaves mentions specific defendants, he fails to allege why
their actions were unreasonable given the circumstances — let alone whether they
had any authority to correct the alleged constitutional deprivation in the first place.
Mr. Eaves argues that the denial of his grievances amounted to a constitutional
violation, but “denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation
of constitutional rights alleged . . . does not establish personal participation under
§ 1983.” Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009). He has not
1 We reject Mr. Eaves’s argument that Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process provides a separate basis for his § 1983 claim. 4 Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 5
made that connection. At most, Mr. Eaves’s complaint alleges negligent conduct by
CDOC and BCCF officials. And mere negligence, such as an accident or “an
inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care[,]” does not constitute the
“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–05 (1976) (citation omitted).
B. Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Eaves’s claims
against CDOC and CDPHE employees in their official capacity, which are suits
against state entities. Generally, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the
states, except those which target state officers acting in their official capacities and
seek prospective, injunctive relief. Hill, 478 F.3d at 1255–56 (citing Ex Parte Young,
209 U.S. 123 (1908)). Mr. Eaves has been transferred from BCCF, and his claim that
CDOC officials and CDPHE supervise care in all Colorado correctional facilities is
far too general. His claim (to the extent it is not barred) is therefore moot. Further,
Mr. Eaves cannot invoke the mootness exception “where the underlying dispute is
capable of repetition, yet evading review” because he has not shown a reasonable
expectation that he will be subjected to the same alleged constitutional violations
again. See Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1160 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
5 Appellate Case: 24-1048 Document: 010111057572 Date Filed: 05/30/2024 Page: 6
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge