Montano v. Salt Lake County Jail et al

Filing 25

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)

u -

(--/LED

.S. U/STRICT caUR .

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRI~,COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTiWl DEC I g . A

1
q: IS

t UTAH

BY:
=---­

ORDER ~~'J!I.ONS TO

THOMAS A. MONTANO,

AMENDCOMP~NT;

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION

v.

Case No. 2:11-CV-174 DS

SALT LAKE COUNTY JAIL STAFF et al.,

District Judge David Sam

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Thomas A. Montano, an inmate at Utah State

Prison, filed this pro se
1983 (2011).

1 rights suit.

S~e

42 U.S.C.S. §

The Court grants Plaintiff's mot

to amend his

complaint.
Instructions to Plaintiff

Under Rule 8 of
complaint is requi

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a
to contain "(1) a short and

n 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 entit

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for

relief the pleader seeks."

.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

The

requirements of Rule 8(a) are intended to guarantee lit
defendants enjoy

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

such
claim on

ch reI

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
litigant."
addit

Id. at 1110.

1 facts,

that assumes

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
re

ling his complaint.

following points before

First, the

sed comglaint must stand

entirely on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by
reference, any portion

any

complaint.

See Murray v.

Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (lOth Cir. 1998)

(stating amended

complaint supercedes original).

complaint must

Second,

clearly state what each individual defendant did to violate
Plaintiff's

viI rights.

1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976)

See Bennett v. Pa

c, 545 F.2d 1260,

(stating personal participation of each
2

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.'"
2222, sl

op. at 4 (10th Cir. July 20, 2009)

(emphasis in original)

(quot

Third, PIa

someone as a defendant based so

1996)

See Mit

(stating

support liability under
wa

iff cannot name

lyon his or her supe

1 v. Maynard,
rvis

(qnpublished)

Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d

1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)).

position.

Stone v. Albert, No. 08

80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir.

status alone is' insuf
§

1983).

sory

And, fourth,

cient to

Plaintiff is

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.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) PIa
(See Doc
(2)

iff's motions to amend his complaint are GRANTED.
Entry #s 11, 13,

&

23.)

Plaintiff shall have thirty days from

order to amend his complaint; and,

3

date of this

(3) the Clerk's

ce shall mail P

iff a copy of the

Pro Se Litigant Guide.
DATED this

/

~ay

of December, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

JU
United States District Court

4