Thundereagle v. Garden

Filing 16

Order to Amend Deficient Complaint and MEMORANDUM DECISION. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 4/24/12. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

JEREMIAH THUNDEREAGLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT
COMPLAINT, & MEMORANDUM
DECISION
Case No. 2:11-CV-1182 DB

RICHARD GARDEN et al.,

District Judge Dee Benson

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Jeremiah Thundereagle, formerly a prisoner at
Utah State Prison (USP), filed this pro se civil rights suit.1
Reviewing the complaint under § 1915A, the Court has determined
that Plaintiff's complaint is deficient as described below.
Deficiencies in Complaint
Complaint:
(a)

possibly inappropriately alleges civil-rights violations
against Dr. Garden on a respondeat-superior theory.

(b)

supplement is not on a court-approved form complaint as
required.

(c)

refers to numerous John Does without giving detailed
information that would allow them to be identified.

(d)

is possibly couched in terms that it is filed on behalf of
other inmates also, when it should speak only to Plaintiff's
specific situation and how the policy he complains of
affects him personally.

1

See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2012).

(e)

is supplemented by another document which should be
consolidated into a single amended complaint without
reference to either the original complaint or the
supplement.

(f)

requests injunctive relief, which is no longer applicable
now that Plaintiff has moved to another facility.
Instructions to Plaintiff
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a

complaint must 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."2

Rule 8(a)'s requirements are meant

to guarantee "that defendants enjoy fair notice of what the
claims against them are and the grounds upon which they rest."3
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."4

Moreover, "it is not the

2

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

3

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).
4

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1009 (10th Cir. 1991).

2

proper function of the Court to assume the role of advocate for a
pro se litigant."5

Thus, the Court cannot "supply additional

facts, [or] construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes
facts that have not been pleaded."6
Plaintiff should consider these points when refiling his
complaint.

First, the revised complaint must stand entirely on

its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by reference, any
portion of the original complaint or supplement.7

Second, the

complaint must clearly state what each individual defendant did
to violate Plaintiff's civil rights.8

"To state a claim, a

complaint must 'make clear exactly who is alleged to have done
what to whom.'"9

Third, Plaintiff cannot name someone as a

defendant based solely on his or her supervisory position.10
And, fourth, Plaintiff is warned that litigants who have had

5

Id. at 1110.

6

Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989).

7

See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating
amended complaint supercedes original).
8

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).
9

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)).
10

See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating
supervisory status alone is insufficient to support liability under § 1983).

3

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) Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this
order to cure the deficiencies noted above.
(2) the Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the
Pro Se Litigant Guide.
(3) if Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies
according to the instructions here this action will be dismissed
without further notice.
DATED this 24th day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________
JUDGE DEE BENSON
United States District Court

4