Evans v. Administrator of the Salt Lake County Metro Jail

Filing 13

ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT COMPLAINT & MEMORANDUM DECISION: It is hereby ordered That: Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the Complaint's deficiencies noted above. The Clerks Office shall mail plaintiff the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a form civil-rights complaint for Plaintiff to use should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to the Order's instructions, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 04/29/2019. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ANTHONY EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SALT LAKE COUNTY JAIL ADMIN.,
Defendant.

ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
COMPLAINT & MEMORANDUM
DECISION
Case No. 2:16-CV-1286-TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Plaintiff, inmate Anthony Evans, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983
(2019), 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 claims. 1
COMPLAINT’S DEFICIENCIES
Complaint:
(a) does not affirmatively link Defendant to civil-rights violations.
(b) appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations on a respondeat-superior theory.
(c) is not on the form required by the Court.
1

The screening statute reads:
(a) Screening.—The court shall review . . . a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.—On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A (2019).

(d) does not identify Defendant by name.
(e) does not clarify whether Plaintiff is still held in Salt Lake County Jail as it must to state a
valid claim under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Pfeil v.
Lampert, 603 F. App’x 665, 668 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (“’RLUIPA claims regarding
prison conditions become moot if the inmate plaintiff is released from custody.’”).
(f) has claims appearing to be based on conditions of 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)).
GUIDANCE FOR 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

2

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 Plaintiff’s 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 any other document. 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
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).
Fourth, grievance denial alone with no connection to “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).

3

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the Complaint’s deficiencies noted above.
(2) The Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a form civil-rights
complaint for Plaintiff to use should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint.
(3) If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to this Order's instructions,
this action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED this 29th day of April, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

JUDGE TED STEWART
United States District Court

4