United States District Court, D. Utah
DOUGLAS D. EVANS, Plaintiff,
JIM WINDER et al., Defendants.
ORDER & MEMORANDUM DECISION
STEWART United States District Judge.
inmate Douglas D. Evans, 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.
Deficiencies in Complaint
(a) alleges claims that concern the constitutionality of his
conviction and/or validity of his imprisonment, which should
be brought in a habeas-corpus petition, not a civil-rights
(b) alleges claims that are possibly invalidated by the rule
in Heck (see below).
(c) inappropriately alleges civil rights violations on a
(d) brings civil-rights claims against Benjamin Grindstaff,
who is not properly named, as he is not a state actor.
(e) alleges conspiracy claims that are too vague (see below).
(f) by naming “Utah State Prison” as a defendant,
effectively improperly names "State of Utah" as a
defendant, though there is no showing that it has waived its
governmental immunity (see below).
(g) has claims appearing to be based on conditions of current
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)).
Instructions to Plaintiff
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