Prigge v. Romney et al

Filing 17

ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT COMPLAINT and MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 4 Motion for Service of Process (Prisoner). It is hereby ordered that: Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the Complaint's deficiencies noted. The Clerk' ;s Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a form complaint and habeas petition for Plaintiff to use should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to this Order's instructions, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/29/2018. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
DIANNE R. PRIGGE,
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
COMPLAINT & MEMORANDUM
DECISION

v.
JUDGE V. ROMNEY et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:17-CV-392-DN
District Judge David Nuffer

Plaintiff, inmate Dianne R. Prigge, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. §
1983 (2018), 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.
A. Deficiencies in Complaint
Complaint:
(a) is not on the form required by the Court.
(b) does not set forth in clear, concise, and well-organized fashion elements of causes of
action sought to be pursued by Plaintiff.
(c) fails to provide an affirmative link between specific defendants and specific civilrights violations.
(d) improperly names judges as defendants, without considering judicial immunity, as
further explained below.
(e) improperly names public defender(s) as defendant(s), without considering that public
defenders are not considered to be state actors subject to suit under § 1983.
(f) possibly attempts to state claims of inadequate medical treatment by corrections
personnel but neither provides necessary factual details nor links of possible claims to
specific defendants.

(g) is perhaps supplemented with claims from letters and documents filed since the
Complaint, which claims should be included in an amended complaint, if filed, and
will not be treated further by the Court unless properly included.
B. 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 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. See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612
(10th Cir. 1998) (stating amended complaint supersedes original).

2

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, "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).
• Judicial Immunity
It is well settled that judges "are absolutely immune from suit unless they act in 'clear
absence of all jurisdiction,' meaning that even erroneous or malicious acts are not proper bases
for § 1983 claims." Segler v. Felfam Ltd. P'ship, No. 08-1466, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10152, at
*4 (10th Cir. May 11, 2009) (unpublished) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57
(1978)). The judges in the claims here very well may have been acting in a judicial capacity in
presiding over Plaintiff’s case(s); if so, those actions would be entitled to absolute immunity. See

3

Doran v. Sanchez, No. 08-2042, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17987, at *2 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2008)
(unpublished).

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 a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a
form complaint and habeas petition 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.
(4) Plaintiff’s motion for service of process is DENIED. (See Docket Entry # 4.)
There is currently no valid complaint on file to be served.
DATED this 29th day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

CHIEF JUDGE DAVID NUFFER
United States District Court

4