United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO AMEND
WADDOUPS United States District Judge
inmate Corey Allan Donaldson, proceeding in forma
pauperis, filed this pro se civil rights suit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Dkt. Nos. 3,
4.) Mr. Donaldson alleges Defendant Sgt. Shawn Stoker
violated his civil rights by falsifying evidence related to
an auto theft that resulted in a false charge, false
imprisonment, and kidnapping when Mr. Donaldson was
transferred for a period of time from his imprisonment in
Georgia to Davis County, Utah. (See Dkt. No. 4, pp.
in forma pauperis statute requires a court to
dismiss a case at any time if the court determines that the
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Court now screens Mr. Donaldson’s Complaint and ORDERS
him to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies before
further pursuing his claims.
Deficiencies in Complaint
Donaldson’s Complaint alleges a state official violated
his civil rights without including allegations that would
overcome the official’s qualified immunity (see below).
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 are meant to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
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).
Donaldson 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 F.3d 609, 612
(10th Cir. 1998) (stating amended complaint supersedes
the complaint must clearly state what the defendant did to
violate his 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). The complaint must “make clear
exactly who is alleged to ...