Sherratt v. Utah Department of Corrections et al
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT and MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 14 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this order to file his third amended complaint. The Clerks Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guise with a blank form complaint. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 5/29/2012. (kpf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
WILLIAM HENRY SHERRATT,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, &
Case No. 2:10-CV-1091 TS
STEVEN TURLEY et al.,
District Judge Ted Stewart
Plaintiff, William Henry Sherratt, an inmate at Utah State
Prison, filed this pro se civil rights suit.
See 42 U.S.C.S. §
With the following instructions, the Court grants
his pending motion to amend his second amended complaint.
Instructions to Plaintiff
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a
complaint is required to contain "(1) a short and plain statement
of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, . . .
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for
the relief the pleader seeks."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
requirements of Rule 8(a) are intended to guarantee "that
defendants enjoy fair notice of what the claims against them are
and the grounds upon which they rest."
TV Commnc'ns Network,
Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991),
aff’d, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992).
Pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with the
minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8.
"This is so because a
pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to recount
the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide
such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a
claim on which relief can be granted."
1106, 1009 (10th Cir. 1991).
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
Moreover, "it is not the proper
function of the Court to assume the role of advocate for a pro se
Id. at 1110.
Thus, the Court cannot "supply
additional facts, [or] construct a legal theory for plaintiff
that assumes facts that have not been pleaded."
Dunn v. White,
880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff should consider the following points before
refiling his complaint.
First, Plaintiff must use the enclosed
Second, the revised complaint must stand
entirely on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by
reference, any portion of the second amended complaint.
Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating
amended complaint supercedes original).
Third, the complaint
must clearly state what each individual defendant did to violate
Plaintiff's civil rights.
See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260,
1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976) (stating personal participation of each
named defendant is essential allegation in civil rights action).
"To state a claim, a complaint must 'make clear exactly who is
alleged to have done what to whom.'"
Stone v. Albert, No. 08-
2222, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir. July 20, 2009) (unpublished)
(emphasis in original) (quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d
1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)).
Fourth, Plaintiff cannot name
someone as a defendant based solely on his or her supervisory
See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir.
1996) (stating supervisory status alone is insufficient to
support liability under § 1983).
And, finally, Plaintiff is
warned that litigants who have had three in forma pauperis cases
dismissed as frivolous or meritless will be restricted from
filing future lawsuits without prepaying fees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's motion to amend his second amended complaint
(See Docket Entry # 14.)
Plaintiff shall have
thirty days from the date of this order to file his third amended
(2) The Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the
Pro Se Litigant Guide with a blank form complaint.
DATED this 29th day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
CHIEF JUDGE TED STEWART
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?