Garman v. Salt Lake County Jail Medical Staff
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER: granting 14 Motion to Amend/Correct; Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within thirty days. The Clerks office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a blank civil rights complaint. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 05/31/2017. (kpf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
JOHN PAUL GARMAN,
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
SALT LAKE COUNTY JAIL at el.,
Case No. 2:16-CV-99-TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
Plaintiff, John Paul Garman, moves the Court to allow him to amend his Complaint here.
The Court grants the motion, giving the following guidance for Plaintiff to follow in amending
INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAINTIFF
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a complaint is required to contain
"(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, . . .
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a
demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The requirements of
Rule 8(a) are intended to guarantee "that defendants enjoy fair notice of what the claims against
them are and the grounds upon which they rest." TV Commnc'ns Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767
F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991), aff’d, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992).
Pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with the minimal pleading requirements
of Rule 8. "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,
1009 (10th Cir. 1991). Moreover, "it is not the proper function of the Court to assume the role of
advocate for a pro se litigant." Id. at 1110. 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 or other documents already filed in this case. See
Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating amended complaint supercedes
original). Second, 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)). Third, Plaintiff
cannot name an individual as a defendant based solely on his or her supervisory position. See
Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441, (10th Cir. 1996) (stating supervisory status alone is
insufficient to support liability under § 1983). And, fourth, Plaintiff is warned that litigants who
have had three in forma pauperis cases dismissed as frivolous or meritless will be restricted from
filing future lawsuits without prepaying fees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's motion for permission to amend his Complaint is GRANTED. (See
Docket Entry # 14.) Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within thirty days.
(2) The Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a
blank civil-rights complaint.
DATED this 31st day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
JUDGE TED STEWART
United States District Court
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?