Ulibarri v. Winder et al
Filing
44
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to cure deficiencies; denying 7 Motion for testimony by expert witness; denying 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 17 Motion for Service of Process (Prisoner); denying 23 Motion re: Rule 602. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 3/6/15 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
FIDENCIO P. ULIBARRI,
Plaintiff,
ORDER & MEMORANDUM DECISION
v.
JAMES WINDER et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:14-CV-433-RJS
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Plaintiff, inmate Fidencio P. Ulibarri, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. §
1983 (2014), in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. The court now screens the Complaint and
orders Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing his
claims.
Deficiencies in Complaint
Complaint:
(a) raises claims against Defendants under a respondeat superior theory, which is invalid
in a federal civil-rights complaint.
(b) has been supplemented by numerous exhibits and other documents, which--to be
considered by the Court--should be condensed and incorporated succinctly into the
amended complaint.
(c) contains claims with a frivolous and fantastical quality, which should be deleted.
(d) has claims appearing to be based on conditions of current 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
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
Amended 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
2
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).
Finally, "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).
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
The court addresses Plaintiff's motion for the court to request pro bono counsel to
represent him. Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel. See Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d
613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995); Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987).
However, the court may in its discretion appoint counsel for indigent plaintiffs. See 28 U.S.C.S.
§ 1915(e)(1) (2014); Carper, 54 F.3d at 617; Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir.
1991). "The burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to
his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel." McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838
(10th Cir. 1985).
3
When deciding whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider a variety of
factors, "including 'the merits of the litigant's claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the
claims, the litigant's ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by
the claims.'" Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Williams, 926
F.2d at 996); accord McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 838-39. Considering the above factors, the court
concludes here that, at this time, Plaintiff's claims may not be colorable, the issues in this case
are not complex, and Plaintiff is not at this time too incapacitated or unable to adequately
function in pursuing this matter. Thus, the court denies for now Plaintiff's motion for appointed
counsel.
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 Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide.
(3) If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to the instructions
here this action will be dismissed without further notice.
(4) Plaintiff’s motions for discovery are DENIED as premature. (See Docket Entry #s 7
& 23.)
(5) Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel is DENIED, (see Docket Entry # 14);
however, if, after the case develops further, it appears that counsel may be needed or of specific
help, the court may ask an attorney to appear pro bono on Plaintiff's behalf.
4
And, (6) Plaintiff’s motion for service of process is DENIED, (see Docket Entry # 17),
pending receipt of his Amended Complaint. Further, the court is already required by statute to
screen prisoner complaints, see 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A (2014), and order service of process if
warranted, see id. § 1915(d). No further prompting by Plaintiff is necessary.
DATED this 6th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge
5
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?