Taren v. Reaves et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 Report and Recommendations.; granting 17 Motion for Leave to File; denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 19 Motion for Service of Process (Prisoner). Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 5/18/16. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

MICHAEL THOMAS TAREN
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
Case No. 2:15-cv-00333-CW-BCW
STEVE REAVES, police officer, OGDEN
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JOHN
AND JANE DOES

District Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Defendants.

Plaintiff Michael Thomas Taren filed this action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985 and 1986. [Dkt. No. 3]. Plaintiff alleges at the time of his arrest, Officer Steve Reaves
seized and confiscated his personal property, a black female pit bull, and refused to lift a hold,
thus allowing the dog to be euthanized several days later. Plaintiff alleges that he had arranged
for a friend to retrieve the dog from animal control, but the retrieval was not permitted because
Officer Reaves refused to release the hold. Plaintiff further alleges that the dog was therapeutic
for him with his mental health problems and he seeks damages for the loss of his personal
property, mental anguish and emotional distress.
This court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) who issued a Report and Recommendation that the complaint be dismissed, but that
Plaintiff be allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint. [Dkt. No. 16]. Magistrate Judge
Wells further recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Motion for
Service of Process be denied without prejudice.

Following entry of the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 17], a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Dkt. No. 18],
and a Request for Official Service of Process [Dkt. No. 19]. Plaintiff has not filed an objection
to the Report and Recommendation. Because his motion to amend may have been intended as a
response to the Report and Recommendation, the court reviews Judge Wells’ decision de novo.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The court therefore interprets the allegations in the
complaint liberally, without requiring the formality expected of parties proceeding with the
representation of counsel. Nevertheless, Plaintiff must meet the pleading requirements to state a
cause of action. As did Magistrate Judge Wells, the court is required to address the sufficiency
of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis.
Upon review of the allegations of the complaint, the court accepts as correct the Report
and Recommendation. Plaintiff fails to allege all of the facts necessary to state a claim under the
sections upon which he relies. From the facts alleged, however, it appears that Plaintiff may be
able to allege additional facts necessary to state a claim under one or more of the alleged
sections. The court therefore accepts and adopts the Recommendation, including the
recommendation that Plaintiff be allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court
encourages Plaintiff to give attention to the deficiencies Magistrate Judge Wells found in the
Complaint and to address them in any proposed amendment.
The court also adopts the Recommendation that the Motion to Appoint Counsel and
Motion for Service of Process be denied without prejudice. It is unclear from the record whether
Plaintiff had reviewed the Report and Recommendation before he filed the new motions for
leave to amend, for appointment of counsel, and for service of process. The motion for leave to
2

file an amended complaint may have been intended to be an “Amended Complaint.” The
document, however, does not appear to address the problems discussed by Magistrate Judge
Wells. In light of the court’s ruling, however, the motions are premature and may be refiled if
the Plaintiff successfully amends his complaint. The court calls to Plaintiff’s attention that in
any proposed amended complaint he must include sufficient facts to satisfy each of the elements
of any cause of action he intends to pursue. In reviewing any proposed amendment, the court is
required to disregard any assertions that are not supported with detailed facts.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Dkt.
No. 16] and DIMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint. The court GRANTS
Plaintiff leave to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT. [Dkt. No. 17]. As detailed in Magistrate
Judge Wells’ Report and Recommendation, the amended complaint must allege sufficient facts to
satisfy each element of the sections at issue. The amended complaint must be filed on or before
June 17, 2016. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Dkt. No. 18] and Motion for Service of
Process [Dkt. No. 19] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED this 18th day of May, 2016
BY THE COURT:

_________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

3