United States District Court, D. Utah
PAUL C. ALLEN, Plaintiff,
UTAH STATE PRISON et al., Defendants.
ORDER & MEMORANDUM DECISION
Nuffer District Judge
inmate Paul C. Allen, filed this pro se civil rights
suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2017), in
forma pauperis, see 28 Id. §
1915. The Court now screens his Complaint and orders
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies
before further pursuing his claims.
(a) is not on the form required by the Court.
(b) by naming “Utah State Prison” as a defendant,
Plaintiff effectively improperly names "State of
Utah" as a defendant, though there is no showing that it
has waived its governmental immunity (see below).
(c) inappropriately alleges civil-rights violations on a
(d) inappropriately alleges civil-rights violations on the
basis of denied grievances.
(e) raises issues of classification change in a way that does
not support a cause of action.
(f) appears not to have been prepared with help from the
prison's contract attorneys.
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).
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).
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. See
Murray v. Archambo, 132 ...