United States District Court, D. Utah
DIANNE R. PRIGGE, Plaintiff,
JUDGE V. ROMNEY et al., Defendants
ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT COMPLAINT & MEMORANDUM
NUFFER, CHIEF JUDGE
inmate Dianne R. Prigge, filed this pro se civil
rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2018),
in forma pauperis, see 28 Id.
§ 1915. The Court now screens the Complaint and orders
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies
before further pursuing claims.
Deficiencies in Complaint
not on the form required by the Court.
does not set forth in clear, concise, and well-organized
fashion elements of causes of action sought to be pursued by
fails to provide an affirmative link between specific
defendants and specific civil-rights vio lat ions.
improperly names judges as defendants, without considering
judicial immunity, as further explained below.
improperly names public defender(s) as defendant(s), without
considering that public defenders are not considered to be
state actors subject to suit under § 1983.
possibly attempts to state claims of inadequate medical
treatment by corrections personnel but neither provides
necessary factual details nor links of possible claims to
perhaps supplemented with claims from letters and documents
filed since the Complaint, which claims should be included in
an amended complaint, if filed, and will not be treated
further by the Court unless properly included.
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