Norton v. State of Utah et al
Filing
33
ORDER and MEMORANDUM DECISION; Denying 31 Motion for Service of Process (Prisoner); Denying 32 Motion to Appoint Counsel; Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the Amended Complaint's deficiencies. The Clerks Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a form complaint for Plaintiff to use should he choose to file another amended complaint. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 08/18/2016. (kpf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
LONNIE NORTON,
Plaintiff,
ORDER & MEMORANDUM DECISION
v.
Case No. 2:14-CV-874-CW
HEATHER BLANCO et al.,
Defendants.
District Judge Clark Waddoups
Plaintiff, inmate Lonnie Norton, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983
(2016), in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. The Court now screens his Amended Complaint
and orders Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further
pursuing his claims.
Deficiencies in Amended Complaint
Amended Complaint:
(a) does not state an affirmative link between any of the named defendants and the
alleged violation of his constitutional right to be free of excessive bail—i.e., none of
these defendants set bail.
(b) 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
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
2
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).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff’s motion for service of process is DENIED. (See Docket Entry # 31.)
(2) Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the Amended Complaint’s deficiencies.
(3) The Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a form
complaint for Plaintiff to use should he choose to file another amended complaint.
(4) Plaintiff’s second motion for appointed counsel, (see Docket Entry # 32), is DENIED,
for the same reasons his first motion was denied in an earlier order, (see Docket Entry #
5).
DATED this 18th day of August, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Judge
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?