M. ARMIJO, District Judge
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), to review Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff is incarcerated, appears pro se, and has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The filing fee for this civil rights complaint is $350.00. Plaintiff is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1). Based on the information in Plaintiff's filings, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and waive the initial partial payment pursuant to § 1915(b)(1). For the reasons below, the Court will dismiss certain of Plaintiff's claims.
The Court has the discretion to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2) "at any time if . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious; [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." The Court also may dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if "it is `patently obvious' that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting McKinney v. Oklahoma, Dep't of Human Services, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In reviewing Plaintiff's pro se complaint, the Court applies the same legal standards applicable to pleadings drafted by counsel but liberally construes the allegations. See Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1520-21 (10th Cir. 1992).
This civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleges that Defendant Quintana has engaged in sexual harassment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Manzanares failed to respond to grievances or otherwise intervene to stop Quintana's improper conduct. Plaintiff contends that Defendants' actions have violated his constitutional protections. The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.
The complaint's allegations do not support a § 1983 claim against Defendant Manzanares. Plaintiff alleges that Manzanares failed to respond to grievances, report Quintana's actions, or intervene to stop the alleged abuse. These allegations do not affirmatively link Defendant Manzanares to the asserted constitutional violations. See Butler v. City of Norman, 992 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th Cir. 1993). "[D]enial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983." Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). To succeed on a complaint under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege some personal involvement by a Defendant in the constitutional violation. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996). A civil rights action against a state official may not be based solely on a theory of respondeat superior liability for the actions of workers supervised by the official. See id. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Manzanares will be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is GRANTED, and the initial partial payment toward the filing fee is WAIVED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of twenty per cent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to his account or show cause why he has no assets and no means by which to pay the designated filing fee, and the Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with two copies of the post-filing financial certificate;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Manzanares are DISMISSED with prejudice, and Defendant Manzanares is DISMISSED as a party to this action;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to issue notice and waiver of service forms, with copies of the complaint, for Defendant Quintana.