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)

Download PDF
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

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?