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.

Oblad v. Smith

United States District Court, D. Utah

July 3, 2018

BRIAN OBLAD, Plaintiff,
v.
LORI SMITH et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DENYING MOTIONS & REQUIRING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

          JILL N. PARRISH JUDGE

         Plaintiff, inmate Brian Oblad, filed this civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court now screens Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

         Deficiencies in Amended Complaint

         Amended Complaint:

(a) is mostly not on the form complaint required by the Court and supplied by the Court when it granted Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint.
(b) does not set forth in clear, concise, and well-organized fashion elements of causes of action sought to be pursued by Plaintiff.
(c) fails to provide an affirmative link between specific defendants and specific civil-rights violations.
(d) appears for the most part to fail to state a constitutional claim because parole is not a federal right (see below).
(e) possibly alleges claims that concern the constitutionality of his imprisonment, which should be brought in a habeas-corpus petition, not a civil-rights complaint.
(f) alleges claims that are possibly invalidated by the rule in Heck (see below).
(g) has claims apparently regarding current confinement; however, the complaint was apparently not drafted with the help of contract attorneys.

         Instructions to Plaintiff

         Plaintiff 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 or other amended and supplemental complaints. See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating amended complaint supersedes original).

         Second, the complaint must clearly state what each defendant--typically, a named government employee--did to violate Plaintiff's 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 ...


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.