Shook v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Salt Lake City Office et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, under 28 USCS 1915(e)(2)(B)(2016), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. neither liberal interpretation of Plaintiff's claims nor the many opportunities Plaintiff has had to amend have led to a different result. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 07/28/2016. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
J. SHOOK,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION &
DISMISSAL ORDER

v.
A. ORME et al.,

Case No. 2:13-CV-841 DAK
Defendants.

District Judge Dale A. Kimball

Former inmate/Plaintiff, J. Shook, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. §
1983 (2016), proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 id. § 1915. His Third Amended Complaint
is now before the Court for screening. See id. § 1915(e).1
Screening Analysis
A. Standard of Review
This Court shall dismiss any claims in a complaint filed in forma pauperis if they are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary
relief against an immune defendant. See id. § 1915(e)(2)(B). "Dismissal of a pro se complaint
for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on
the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend." Perkins v.
Kan. Dep't of Corrs., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). When reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint the Court "presumes all of plaintiff's factual allegations are true and construes them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
1

The Court notes that it has issued already two orders in this case in the past that have identified deficiencies in
earlier iterations of the complaint and given Plaintiff guidance for how to cure the deficiencies.

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se the Court must construe his pleadings "liberally"
and hold them "to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. at
1110. However, "[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff’s complaint does not relieve [him] of the
burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based." Id. While
Plaintiff need not describe every fact in specific detail, "conclusory allegations without
supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based." Id.
B. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint cursorily claims only that “the defendants did
knowingly deprive him of constitutional rights speciffically [sic] the 14th Amendment to U.S.C.
granting equal protection under the color of law.” This vague claim is brought against A. Orme,
former Juab County sheriff; A. Taylor, investigating officer; and J. Elderidge, Juab County
prosecuting attorney.
2. Affirmative Link
The complaint must clearly state what each individual defendant 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)). Plaintiff does
not identify behavior by Defendants that links them with any particularity to violation of his right
to equal protection. Because Plaintiff has done nothing to affirmatively link Defendants to a

2

violation of his right to equal protection, all defendants and potential equal-protection claims are
dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice,
under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2016), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Neither liberal interpretation of Plaintiff's claims nor the many opportunities Plaintiff
has had to amend have led to a different result.
DATED this 28th day of July, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

3