United States District Court, D. Utah
ORDER & MEMORANDUM DECISION
SAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Judge David Sam Plaintiff, inmate Jason Shook, 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) improperly names "State of Utah" as a
defendant, though there is no showing that it has waived its
governmental immunity (see below).
(b) does not affirmatively link some defendants to
(c) possibly states crimes by Defendants must be redressed;
however, a federal civil-rights is not the proper place to
address criminal behavior.
(d) contains claims based on state law-e.g.,
negligence-though there are no valid federal claims in the
Complaint providing grounds for pendent jurisdiction.
(e) 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."
TVCommc'ns Network, Inc. vESPN, 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 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998)
(stating amended complaint supersedes original).
the complaint must clearly state what each
defendant-typically, a named government employee-did to
violate Plaintiffs 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. ...