Harley v. Sparks et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order to Amend Deficient Complaint-Plaintiff shall have THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order to cure the deficiencies noted in order; the Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide; and, 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 David Sam on 6/20/13. (jmr)
f\\..EO
1\1
U.S.O\SlR\Cl COU
IN THE PlifJtTlJ< O'l%'tES DISTRICT COURT
.M\R-~HE DISTRICT OF UTAH
tun
6\S1R\Cl Of UTA\i
DONALD A. HARLEY,
v
Rl\
i ,: Of..PUi'f elf..
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO
AMEND DEFICIENT COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:13-CV-213 DS
v.
District Judge David Sam
LT. D. SPARKS et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Donald A. Harley, an inmate at Utah State Prison,
filed this pro se civil rights suit.
(2013).
Plainti
28 id. 1915.
See 42 U.S.C.S.
§
1983
was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.
See
Reviewing the Complaint under § 1915(e), the Court
determines that it is deficient.
Deficiencies in Complaint
Complaint:
(a) does not make an affirmative link between Defendants Sparks,
Pope, Benzon and Turley, and the specific breach of each of
Plaintiff's civil rights.
(b) has claims appearing to be based on conditions of current
confinement; however, the complaint was not submitted
through contract attorneys.
Instructions to Plaintiff
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a
complaint is required to 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 ent
led to
ief, and (3) a demand for judgment for
the relief the pleader seeks."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
The
requirements of Rule 8(a) are intended to guarantee "that
defendants enjoy fair notice
what the claims against them are
and the grounds upon which they rest."
Inc. v. ESPN, Inc.,
aff'd,
TV Commnc'ns Network,
767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991),
964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992).
Pro se lit{gants 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
ury, and he must provide
such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a
claim on which relief can be granted."
1106, 1009 (10th Cir. 1991).
Hall v. Bellman,
935 F.2d
Moreover, "it is not the proper
function of the Court to assume the role of advocate for a pro se
litigant."
at 1110.
additional facts,
Thus, the Court cannot "supply
[or] construct a legal theory for plaintiff
that assumes facts that have not been pleaded."
880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th
Dunn v. White,
r. 1989).
Plaintiff should consider the following points before
ling his complaint.
rst, the revised complaint must stand
entirely on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by
re
renee, any portion of the original complaint.
2
See Murray v.
Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612
r.
(10th
complaint supercedes original).
1998)
(stating amended
Second, the complaint must
clearly state what each individual defendant did to violate
Plaintiff's civil rights.
1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976)
See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260,
(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.'"
2222, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir.
(emphasis in original)
position.
1996)
y 20, 2009)
(unpublished)
(quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d
1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)).
someone as a
Stone v. Albert, No. 08
Third, Plaintiff cannot name
fendant based solely on his or her supervisory
See Mitchell v. Maynard,
80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir.
(stating supervisory status alone is insufficient to
support liability under § 1983).
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).
And, finally, Plaintiff is warned that litigants who have
had three in forma pauperis cases dismissed as frivolous or
merit
ss will be restricted from filing future lawsuits without
prepaying fees.
3
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 Plainti
a copy of the
Pro Se Litigant Guide; and,
(3)
if Plaintiff
ils to timely cure the above deficiencies
according to the instructions here this action will be dismissed
without further notice.
DATED this
,;/.(J";- day of June,
2013.
BY THE COURT:
JUDGE DAVID SAM
United States District 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?