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)

Download PDF
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

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?