Lu v. University of Utah
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM DECISION: Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint by 6/17/14. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/18/14 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
YUNG-KAI LU,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case No. 2:13-cv-00984-TC-DBP
v.
District Judge Tena Campbell
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH,
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Defendant.
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket No. 5.) Pro
se Plaintiff, who proceeds in forma pauperis, is Yung-Kai Lu. Defendant is the University of
Utah. On October 28, 2013 Plaintiff filed his complaint with the Court. (Dkt. No. 3.) On
January 31, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff an extension until April 22, 2014 to serve a
summons and the complaint on Defendant. (Dkt. No. 6.)
Thereafter, Plaintiff mailed the Clerk of Court summons for the following nonparties: (1)
Lori McDonald; (2) Donn Schaefer; (3) George Marie; (4) Chalimar Swain; (5) Charles A.
Wight; (6) Charles Piele; and (7) Miguel Chaqui. Because Plaintiff resides in Taipei, Taiwan, he
arranged for his server to pick up these summons from the Clerk of Court and to serve the
summons on these seven individuals.
Page 1 of 3
Plaintiff never formally identified these seven individuals as Defendants in his original
complaint. For this reason, and the other reasons discussed below, this Court ORDERS Plaintiff
to amend the complaint to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and DUCivR 3-5.
II.
STATEMENT OF LAW ON COMPLAINT REQUIREMENTS
A complaint must 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, which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). See also DUCivR 3-5 (requiring a complaint to
“state the basis for the court’s jurisdiction, the basis for the plaintiff’s claim or cause for action,
and the demand for relief.”).
III.
ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s current complaint fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and DUCivR 3-5. The
complaint fails to identify the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction. The complaint fails to
formally list any named defendants. The complaint contains factual allegations about how the
University of Utah allegedly racially discriminated against Plaintiff, violated privacy laws,
issued Plaintiff an unlawful contract, and misused state funds. However, these factual
allegations are not tied to any identifiable legal causes of action. Moreover, the complaint does
not include any specific demand for relief.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint that complies
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and DUCivR 3-5. The amended complaint should identify the grounds for
this Court’s jurisdiction. It should formally identify all the parties that Plaintiff wishes to name
as defendants in the action. The complaint should identify legal causes of action, and provide
Page 2 of 3
clear statements that show Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief on those causes of action. Finally,
Plaintiff should list a specific demand or demands for relief.
IV.
ORDERS
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to amend his complaint as instructed above. For further
guidance about how to file a proper complaint, Plaintiff may wish to refer to the Court’s Pro Se
Litigant Guide. Plaintiff may locate this guide from the list of forms available at
www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/formpage.html.
Plaintiff must file his amended complaint with the Court by June 17, 2014. After Plaintiff
files a properly amended complaint, the Clerk of Court will contact Plaintiff’s server to pick up
the amended complaint and the summons Plaintiff previously mailed to the Clerk of Court.
Dated this 18th day of April, 2014.
By the Court:
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?