United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DENYING MOTIONS &
REQUIRING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
N. PARRISH JUDGE
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. §
in 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
(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
(e) possibly alleges claims that concern the
constitutionality of his imprisonment, which should be
brought in a habeas-corpus petition, not a civil-rights
(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.
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).
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 ...