Manseau v. Salt Lake County Jail

Filing 18

ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT, THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MEMORANDUM DECISION: It is hereby ordered: Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the deficiencies noted. The Clerks 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 Ted Stewart on 12/18/2013. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
BRYAN WILLIAM MANSEAU,
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND
MEMORANDUM DECISION

v.
SALT LAKE COUNTY,
Case No. 2:13-CV-78-TS
Defendant.
District Judge Ted Stewart

Plaintiff, inmate Bryan William Manseau, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42
U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2013), in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. The Court now screens the Third
Amended Complaint and orders Plaintiff to file a fourth amended complaint to cure deficiencies
before further pursuing his claims.
Deficiencies in Third Amended Complaint
Complaint:
(a) improperly names Salt Lake County as a defendant, in violation of municipal-liability
doctrine (see below).
(b) does not state a proper legal-access claim (see below).
Repeated Instructions to Plaintiff
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to contain "(1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . .; (2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the
relief sought." Rule 8's requirements mean to guarantee "that defendants enjoy fair notice of

what the claims against them are and the grounds upon which they rest." TV Commc'ns Network,
Inc. v ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991).
Pro se litigants are not excused from complying with these minimal pleading demands.
"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.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Moreover, it is improper for the Court "to assume the role of advocate for
a pro se litigant." Id. Thus, the Court cannot "supply additional facts, [or] construct a legal
theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded." Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d
1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff should consider the following points before 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. See Murray v. Archambo,132 F.3d 609, 612
(10th Cir. 1998) (stating amended complaint supersedes original).
Second, the complaint must clearly state what each defendant--typically, a named
government employee--did to violate Plaintiff's civil rights. 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). "To state a claim, a complaint must 'make clear
exactly who is 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 defendant based solely on his or her
supervisory position. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.2d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating
supervisory status alone does not support § 1983 liability).
Fourth, "denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of
constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983."
Gallagher v. Shelton, No. 09-3113, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 25787, at *11 (10th Cir. Nov. 24,
2009).
Fifth, to establish the liability of municipal entities, such as Salt Lake County, under §
1983, "a plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a municipal custom or policy and (2) a direct
causal link between the custom or policy and the violation alleged." Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d
988, 993-94 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989)).
Municipal entities cannot be held liable under § 1983 based on the doctrine of respondeat
superior. See Cannon v. City and County of Denver, 998 F.2d 867, 877 (10th Cir. 1993); see
also Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
Plaintiff has not so far established a direct causal link between his alleged injuries and
any custom or policy of Salt Lake County. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's
complaint, as it stands, appears to fail to state claims against Salt Lake County.
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff's claims involve legal access. As Plaintiff fashions
his amended complaint, he should therefore keep in mind that it is well-recognized that prison
inmates "have a constitutional right to 'adequate, effective, and meaningful' access to the courts
and that the states have 'affirmative obligations' to assure all inmates such access." Ramos v.
Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 583 (10th Cir. 1980). In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the
Supreme Court expounded on the obligation to provide access to the Courts by stating "the

fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist
inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with
adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from person trained in the law." Id. at 828
(footnote omitted & emphasis added).
However, to successfully assert a constitutional claim for denial of access to the courts, a
plaintiff must allege not only the inadequacy of the library or legal assistance furnished but also
"that the denial of legal resources hindered [the plaintiff's] efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous
claim." Penrod v. Zavaras, 84 F.3d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added); Carper v.
Deland, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995). In other words, a plaintiff must show "that any
denial or delay of access to the court prejudiced him in pursuing litigation." Treff v. Galetka, 74
F.3d 191, 194 (10th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the non-frivolous litigation involved must be "habeas
corpus or civil rights actions regarding current confinement." Carper, 54 F.3d at 616; accord
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55 (1996); McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th
Cir. 1985).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff must within thirty days 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 this Order's
instructions, this action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED this 18th day of December, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge