Blake-Brock v. Sandy City Police Department et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION that Plaintiff file a new Amended Complaint, as set forth in this Order, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Failure to file an Amended Complaint that meets the above requirements will result in dismissal of this case. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 05/10/2012. (asp)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

MARGIE BROCK,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

vs.
SANDY CITY POLICE DEPT, et al.,

Case No. 2:10-CV-570 TS

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court for screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff Margie
Blake-Brock is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. She filed her Complaint with the Court
on June 21, 2010.
On April 4, 2012, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). As a result of that screening, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to
properly allege a claim against any Defendant. Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint named
as Defendants Sandy City Police Department and Sandy City Corporation, and alleged violations
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, denial of equal protection, and breach of statutory duty.
Plaintiff first alleged that both Defendants should be held liable under § 1983 for acts
allegedly committed by Sandy City Police Department officers. However, because a
municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 for injuries inflicted solely by its employees or
agents and Plaintiff did not allege that the execution of a government policy led to the
deprivations alleged in her Complaint, Plaintiff did not properly allege a claim under § 1983.

1

Furthermore, Plaintiff did not allege that a law or ordinance was behind the alleged equal
protection deprivations. Finally, “with respect to her claim for breach of statutory duty, Plaintiff
[did] not allege what statute applies, what duty Defendants are breaching, or what Defendants are
doing to breach that duty.” 1
The Court then gave Plaintiff thirty days to file “an Amended Complaint that sets forth
which constitutional or statutory rights are allegedly being violated and both the person(s) and
action(s) allegedly violating those rights. In doing so, the Court remind[ed] Plaintiff that claims
must be more than speculative, but be set forth with specificity.” 2
On May 4, 2012, Plaintiff re-filed with the Court the same Proposed Amended Complaint
that the Court had previously screened. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and out of an
abundance of caution, the Court will give Plaintiff one more opportunity to amend her Complaint
in compliance with the directions set forth above.
Based on the foregoing, it is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff file a new Amended Complaint, as set forth above, within thirty
(30) days from the date of this Order. Failure to file an Amended Complaint that meets the
above requirements will result in dismissal of this case.
DATED May 10, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

1

Docket No. 13, at 4.

2

Id.
2