Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Demill

United States District Court, D. Utah

July 11, 2017

JEFFERY W. JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN DEMILL, Defendants.

          ORDER & MEMORANDUM DECISION

          JUDGE JILL N. PARRISH United States District Court.

         Plaintiff, inmate Jeffery W. Jones, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court now screens his Complaint and orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing his claims.

         A. Deficiencies in Complaint

         Complaint:

         (a) fails to provide an affirmative link between specific defendants and specific civil-rights violations.

         (b) inappropriately alleges civil rights violations on a respondeat-superior theory.

         (c) refers to John-Doe types, without giving detailed information that would allow them to be identified.

         (d) possibly attempts to state claims of inadequate medical treatment by corrections personnel but neither provides necessary factual details nor links of possible claims to specific defendants.

         (e) appears to involve claims that are past the statute of limitations for a civil-rights case (see below).

         (f) alleges conspiracy claims that are too vague (see below).

         (g) improperly names Board of Pardons as a defendant, though it is not an independent legal entities that can sue or be sued.

         (h) raises issues of classification change (decrease in privilege level) in a way that does not support a cause of action.

         (i) alleges “a random and unauthorized deprivation of property under color of state law, ” without considering that such a claim “does not give rise to a § 1983 claim if there is an adequate state post-deprivation remedy.” See Frazier v Flores, No. 13-1535, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12936, at *4 (10th Cir. July 9, 2014) (unpublished) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)).

         (j) erroneously equates the Offender Management Review process with the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.