Montano v. Salt Lake County Jail et al
Order Granting Motions to Amend Complaint;MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 11 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 13 Motion for Leave to File; granting 23 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge David Sam on 12/19/11. (jmr)
.S. U/STRICT caUR .
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRI~,COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTiWl DEC I g . A
ORDER ~~'J!I.ONS TO
THOMAS A. MONTANO,
Case No. 2:11-CV-174 DS
SALT LAKE COUNTY JAIL STAFF et al.,
District Judge David Sam
Plaintiff, Thomas A. Montano, an inmate at Utah State
Prison, filed this pro se
1 rights suit.
42 U.S.C.S. §
The Court grants Plaintiff's mot
to amend his
Instructions to Plaintiff
Under Rule 8 of
complaint is requi
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a
to contain "(1) a short and
of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends,
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entit
to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for
relief the pleader seeks."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
requirements of Rule 8(a) are intended to guarantee lit
r notice of what the claims aga
and the grounds upOn which they rest."
st them are
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 lit
s are not excu
from compliance with t
minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8.
"This is so because a
pro se plaintiff requires no special legal tra
ing to recount
the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provi
s if the court is to
ermine whether he makes out a
f can be granted."
1106, 1009 (lOth Cir. 1991).
Moreover, "it is not the proper
function of the Court to assume the ro
Id. at 1110.
Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d
of advocate for a pro se
Thus, the Court cannot "supply
[or] construct a legal theory ·for plaintiff
s that have not been pleaded."
Dunn v. White,
880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989).
intiff should consider t
ling his complaint.
following points before
sed comglaint must stand
entirely on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by
reference, any portion
See Murray v.
Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (lOth Cir. 1998)
complaint supercedes original).
clearly state what each individual defendant did to violate
1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976)
See Bennett v. Pa
c, 545 F.2d 1260,
(stating personal participation of each
named defendant is essential allegation in civil rights action).
"To state a c
im, a complaint must 'make clear exactly who is
alleged to have done wha t to whom.'"
op. at 4 (10th Cir. July 20, 2009)
(emphasis in original)
someone as a defendant based so
support liability under
iff cannot name
lyon his or her supe
1 v. Maynard,
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d
1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)).
Stone v. Albert, No. 08
80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir.
status alone is' insuf
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:
iff's motions to amend his complaint are GRANTED.
Entry #s 11, 13,
Plaintiff shall have thirty days from
order to amend his complaint; and,
date of this
(3) the Clerk's
ce shall mail P
iff a copy of the
Pro Se Litigant Guide.
of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
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?