Glazier v. Foote et al
ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT COMPLAINT and MEMORANDUM DECISION. 1) Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this order to cure the deficiencies noted above. 2) The Clerks 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. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 5/25/2012. (kpf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
TYREL ORSON GLAZIER,
ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT
COMPLAINT, & MEMORANDUM
Case No. 2:12-CV-306 CW
STEPHEN D. FOOTE et al.,
District Judge Clark Waddoups
Plaintiff, Tyrel Orson Glazier, a prisoner at Central Utah
Correctional Facility, 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
does not address Judge Harmond's potential immunity from
suit, as further explained below.
does not address the prosecutors' potential immunity from
suit, as further explained below.
provides no affirmative link between violation of
Plaintiff's civil rights and the actions of Defendants.
has claims apparently regarding current confinement;
however, the complaint was apparently not drafted with the
help of contract attorneys.
See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2012).
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
proper function of the Court to assume the role of advocate for a
pro se litigant."5
Thus, the Court cannot "supply additional
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
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).
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1009 (10th Cir. 1991).
Id. at 1110.
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
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
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
three in forma pauperis cases dismissed as frivolous or meritless
will be restricted from filing future lawsuits without prepaying
Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989).
See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating
amended complaint supercedes original).
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).
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)).
See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating
supervisory status alone is insufficient to support liability under § 1983).
Moreover, it is well settled that judges "are absolutely
immune from suit unless they act in 'clear absence of all
jurisdiction,' meaning that even erroneous or malicious acts are
not proper bases for § 1983 claims."
Segler v. Felfam Ltd.
P'ship, No. 08-1466, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10152, at *4 (10th Cir.
May 11, 2009) (unpublished) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349, 356-57 (1978)).
Regarding the claims at issue here, Judge
Harmond may have been acting in his judicial capacity in
presiding over this case, so his actions would be entitled to
See Doran v. Sanchez, No. 08-2042, 2008 U.S.
App. LEXIS 17987, at *2 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2008) (unpublished).
Finally, a prosecutor acting within the scope of his duties
enjoys absolute immunity from suit under § 1983.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424 (1976).
Charles's and Foote's acts,
as alleged by Plaintiff, appear to relate to their advocacy
before the court.
These prosecutors therefore may be entitled to
absolute prosecutorial immunity from this lawsuit.
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 25th day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Court
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?