Olsen v. Windor

Filing 14

Order to Amend Deficient Complaint and MEMORANDUM DECISION-Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the deficiencies noted above. The Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide. If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to this Order's instructions, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge David Sam on 5/15/12. (jmr)

FILED
U.S. DIS CT COURT
IN THE UNITEp I~TpeES DISTRICT COURT
ZUIZ Mil~~ ~UE' MSTRICT OF UTAH

OISTRIC'f

or UTAH

ADAM DELBERT OLSE~y:_

J.
DEPUTY CLERK )

intiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

V.
JAMES WINDER,
Defendant.

ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT
COMPLAINT, & MEMORANDUM
DECISION

Case No. 2: 12-CV-154 DS
Dist

ct Judge David Sam

Plaintiff, inmate Adam Delbert Olsen, filed this pro se
civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2012), in forma
pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915.

and orders Plaintiff to

The Court now screens the complaint

le an amended complaint to cure

deficiencies before further pursuing his claims.
Deficiencies in Complaint

Complaint:
(a) inappropriately alleges civil-rights violations against

defendant sheri
on a respondeat-superior theory.

(b) has claims appearing to be based on conditions of current
confinement; however, the complaint was apparent
not
submitted using the legal help Pla
iff is entitled to by
his institution under the Constitution.
See Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996) (requiring prisoners be given
"'adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons
trained in
law' . . . to ensure that inmates . . . have
a reasonably adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal
claims challenging the
convictions or conditions of
confinement") (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828
(1977) (emphasis added)).

Instructions to Plaintiff

Rule 8

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

complaint to

res a

"(1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds

court's jurisdiction.

statement

.

.,

(2)

a

and plain

claim showing that the pleader is ent

to
8's

relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought."
requirements mean to guarantee "that defendants enjoy
of what the

aga

notice

st them are and the grounds upon which

TV Commc'ns Network, Inc. v ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp.

they rest."

1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991).
Pro se 1

igants are not excused from complying

minimal pleading demands.
requires no

these

"This is so because a pro se

legal training to recount the

surrounding his

rmine whether he makes out a

s

leged injury, and he must provide

the court is to

ainti

relief can be

"

(10th Cir. 1991).
assume the

Moreover, it is improper for the Court "to
for a pro se litigant."
y additional facts,

theory for plainti
pleaded."

on which

Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110

of

the Court cannot "

s if

Id.

Thus,

[or J construct a legal

assumes facts that have not been

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

Plaintiff should cons
refiling his compla

the following points before

First, the revised complaint must stand
2

enti

y on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by

reference, any portion of the original complaint or any of the

this case after the original complaint

documents/letters filed
was

led.

See Murray v. Archambo r 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir.

1998)

(stating amended complaint supercedes original).
Second, the complaint must clearly state what each defendant

did to violate Plaintiff's civil rights.
545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (lOth Cir. 1976)

See Bennett v. Passic r
(stating personal

participation of each named defendant is essent
civil

ghts action).

clear exactly who

1 allegation

"To state a claim, a complaint must 'make
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)).
Third, Plaintiff cannot name an individual as a
based solely on his or her supervisory position.

Maynard r 80 F.2d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996)
status alone does not support

§

fendant

See Mitchell v.

(stating supervisory

1983 liability).

Further,

"denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the
violation of constitutional

right~

alleged by plaintiff, does not

establish personal participation under § 1983."

3

Gallagher v.

Shelton, No. 09-3113, 2009

u.s.

App. LEXIS 25787, at *11 (10th

Cir. Nov. 24, 2009).
ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
(1)

aintiff must within thirty days cure the deficiencies

noted above.
(2) The

erk's Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the

Pro Se Litigant Guide.
(3) If
according to

aintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies
s Order's instructions, this action will be

dismissed without further notice.
"1:;;.

DATED this

IS day of May,

2012.

BY THE COURT:

JUDGE DAVID SAM
United States
strict Court

4