Rohwedder v. State of Utah
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM DECISION and REPEATED ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT AMENDED COMPLAINT; It is hereby ordered that: As a final opportunity, Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the deficiencies noted above. If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to this Order's instructions, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Denying 24 Motion for Service of Process (Prisoner) Denying 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel; Denying 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 10/8/2015. (kpf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
BILLY L. ROHWEDDER,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
REPEATED ORDER TO AMEND
DEFICIENT AMENDED COMPLAINT
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Case No. 2:13-CV-710-DB
Defendant.
District Judge Dee Benson
Plaintiff, inmate Billy L. Rohwedder, filed this civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983
(2015). The Court now screens the Amended Complaint, see 28 id. § 1915A, and orders Plaintiff
to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing his claims.
Deficiencies in Amended Complaint
Amended Complaint:
(a) improperly names "State of Utah" as a defendant, though there is no showing that it has
waived its governmental immunity (see below).
(b) alleges claims that are possibly invalidated by the rule in Heck (see below).
(c) is not on a Court-approved form.
(d) has claims appearing to be based on conditions of confinement; however, the complaint
was apparently not submitted using the legal help Plaintiff 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
the law' . . . to ensure that inmates . . . have a reasonably adequate opportunity to file
nonfrivolous legal claims challenging their convictions or conditions of confinement")
(quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977) (emphasis added)).
Instructions to Plaintiff
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, as to claims that have been made against the State, generally, the Eleventh
Amendment prevents "suits against a state unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit,
or if Congress has validly abrogated the state's immunity." Ray v. McGill, No. CIV-06-0334-HE,
2
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51632, at *8 (W.D. Okla. July 26, 2006) (unpublished) (citing Lujan v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 F.3d 1511, 1522 (10th Cir. 1995); Eastwood v. Dep't of Corrs., 846
F.2d 627, 631 (10th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff asserts no basis for determining that the State has
waived its immunity or that it has been abrogated by Congress. Because any claims against the
State appear to be precluded by Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court believes it has no
subject-matter jurisdiction to consider them. See id. at *9.
Finally, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's claims appear to involve some allegations that
if true may invalidate his conviction and/or sentencing. "In Heck, the Supreme Court explained
that a § 1983 action that would impugn the validity of a plaintiff's underlying conviction cannot
be maintained unless the conviction has been reversed on direct appeal or impaired by collateral
proceedings." Nichols v. Baer, No. 08-4158, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4302, at *4 (10th Cir. Mar.
5, 2009) (unpublished) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)). Heck prevents
litigants "from using a § 1983 action, with its more lenient pleading rules, to challenge their
conviction or sentence without complying with the more stringent exhaustion requirements for
habeas actions." Butler v. Compton, 482 F.3d 1277, 1279 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Heck clarifies that "civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of
outstanding criminal judgments." 512 U.S. at 486.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in a way that may attack
Petitioner's very imprisonment. Heck requires that, when a plaintiff requests damages in a §
1983 suit, this Court must decide whether judgment in the plaintiff's favor would unavoidably
imply that the conviction or sentence is invalid. Id. at 487. Here, it appears it may regarding
some claims. If this Court were to conclude that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated in
3
a prejudicial manner, it would be stating that Plaintiff's conviction and/or sentence were not
valid. Thus, the involved claims "must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated." Id. This has apparently not happened and
may result in dismissal of such claims.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) As a final opportunity, Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the deficiencies noted
above.
(2) If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to this Order's
instructions, this action will be dismissed without further notice.
(3) Plaintiff’s motion for service of process is DENIED. (See Docket Entry # 24.) There
is no valid complaint on file to serve. Moreover, the Court will screen and order service of
process on prisoner complaints without prompting. So, no motions of this kind are ever needed.
(4) For the reasons stated in the Court’s prior order denying appointed counsel, Plaintiff’s
motions for appointed counsel are DENIED. (See Docket Entry #s 25 & 26.)
DATED this 8th day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
JUDGE DEE BENSON
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?