Taylor v. State of Utah
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT PETITION:denying 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 6 Motion to order to respond ; denying 11 Motion for Order to Show Cause; granting 12 Motion for court to find t ranscripts sent certified mail to the court. Within seven days, the Clerk of Court shall determine whether a transcript was received by the Clerk's Office; granting 13 Motion to sent a copy of the docket; granting 17 Motion to send him a copy of the docket; granting 20 Motion to send him a copy of the docket. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 09/04/2018. (kpf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ROY D. TAYLOR
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
TO AMEND DEFICIENT PETITION
Case No. 2:18-CV-8-CW
STATE OF UTAH,
District Judge Clark Waddoups
Respondent.
Petitioner, Roy D. Taylor, an inmate at Utah State Prison, filed a pro se habeas-corpus
petition. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (2018). Reviewing the Petition, the Court concludes that it
must be amended to cure the below deficiencies if Petitioner wishes to further pursue his claims.
DEFICIENCIES IN PETITION
Petition:
(a)
has possibly been supplemented by other potential claims in the numerous other
documents filed in this case by Petitioner.
(b)
along with supplemental documents, inappropriately requests relief regarding conditions
of confinement that would be more properly brought as civil-rights claims in a different
case.
(c)
has claims appearing to be based on the illegality of Petitioner's current confinement;
however, the petition was apparently not submitted using the legal help Petitioner is
entitled to by his institution under the Constitution--e.g., by contract attorneys. 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 PETITIONER
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an initial pleading 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 [respondents] 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), 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 [litigant] 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 [petitioner] that assumes facts that have not been pleaded." Dunn v.
White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989).
Petitioner should consider the following general points before refiling his petition. First,
the revised petition must stand entirely on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by
reference, any portion of the original petition or any other documents previously filed by
Petitioner. See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (amendment
supersedes original). Second, the petitioner must clearly state whom his custodian is and name
that person (a warden or ultimate supervisor of an imprisonment facility) as the respondent. See
2
R. 2, Rs. Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. Dist. Courts. Third, Petitioner may generally not
bring civil-rights claims as to the conditions of his confinement in a habeas-corpus petition.
Fourth, any claims about Petitioner's underlying conviction and/or sentencing should be brought
under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (2017); any claims about the execution of Petitioner's sentence should
be brought under id. § 2241. Fifth, Petitioner should seek help to prepare initial pleadings from
legal resources (e.g., contract attorneys) available where he is held.
PRELIMARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Court evaluates Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Petitioner
appears to merely be trying to expedite the relief he seeks in his petition. This type of injunction
is disfavored by the law. See SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098-99 (10th
Cir. 1991).
Further, Petitioner has not specified adequate facts showing each of the four elements
necessary to obtain a preliminary injunctive order:
"(1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2)
irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction; (3) proof that the
threatened harm outweighs any damage the injunction may cause
to the party opposing it; and (4) that the injunction, if issued, will
not be adverse to the public interest."
Brown v. Callahan, 979 F. Supp. 1357, 1361 (D. Kan. 1997) (quoting Kan. Health Care Ass'n v.
Kan. Dep't of Soc. and Rehab. Servs., 31 F.3d 1536, 1542 (10th Cir. 1994)).
Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy to be granted only
when the right to relief is "clear and unequivocal." SCFC ILC, Inc., 936 F.2d at 1098. The Court
has carefully reviewed Petitioner's pleadings and motions for injunctive relief and concludes
Petitioner's claims do not rise to such an elevated level that an emergency injunction is
3
warranted. In sum, Petitioner has not met the heightened pleading standard required in moving
for an emergency injunction.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Petitioner shall have THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order to cure the
deficiencies noted above.
(2) The Clerk's Office shall mail Petitioner a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a
proper form petition and/or civil-rights complaint for him to complete, according to the
directions.
(3) If Petitioner fails to timely cure the above-noted deficiencies, as instructed here, this
action will be dismissed without further notice.
(4) Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED. (See Doc. No. 4.)
(5) Petitioner’s motions requesting the Court to order Respondent to answer are
DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 6 & 11.) Based on this Order, the original petition is not eligible for
service. Moreover, if the Court orders an answer on any amended petition, it will do so at its own
initiative. No prompting by Petitioner is needed.
(6) Petitioner’s motion asking the Court to “find transcripts sent certified mail to the
court” is GRANTED, (Doc. No. 12), as follows: Within seven days, the Clerk of Court shall
determine whether a transcript was received by the Clerk’s Office and the docketing status of
transcripts in this case and respond by letter to Petitioner about the status of any such transcripts.
4
(7) Petitioner’s motions requesting the Court to send him a copy of the docket are
GRANTED. (Doc. Nos. 13, 17 & 20.)
DATED this 4th day of September, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Court
5
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?