United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
WADDOUPS DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. FURSE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Ruben Roybal, proceeding in forma
pauperis, filed the Complaint in this matter in June
2018. In July 2018, the Court set a status conference for
August 15, 2018 to give Mr. Roybal the opportunity explain
the claims he is attempting to assert in this case and the
bases for those claims. (ECF No. 5.) Mr. Roybal did not
appear at the status conference. (ECF No. 6.)
Court has reviewed Mr. Roybal's Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and finds that it fails to
state a plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, the
undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Judge dismiss Mr.
Roybal's Complaint without prejudice.
13, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge granted Mr.
Roybal's request to proceed in forma pauperis in
this matter. (ECF No. 2.) Mr. Roybal's Complaint appears
to name as defendants the State of Utah, Melanie Hooten of
the University of Utah School of Medicine, Jolanda Reyes of
Salt Lake County Services, Timothy James Trujillo, Jr. of the
State of Utah, and the “Pollack Family” of the
University of Utah (collectively, the “State of Utah
Defendants”). (Compl., ECF No. 3 at 1-3.) Mr. Roybal
alleges that the individual defendants “worked under
the State of Utah to provide services.” (Id.)
Roybal purports to bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Compl., ECF No. 3 at 1.) The Complaint asserts a sole
cause of action for “No Signed Paperwork From
Plaintiff.” (Id. at 4.) Mr. Roybal states the
following as supporting facts for his cause of action:
As a study from the School of Medicen [sic] I Ruben Roybal
was under a medical study to be monitored medicated and under
control by the Medical Department of the University of Utah
to have a study done without my consent.
(Id.). The Complaint further adds that:
Melanie Hooten provides a service to state inmates from the
State of Utah to watch and to hurt physically to harm serious
injury to cause death or major harm using the State of
Utah's funds to be transferred to the injured families.
(Id. at 3.) When describing his alleged injury, Mr.
Roybal states: “My medical condiction [sic] has been
affect [sic] along with the social community including jobs
and income.” (Id. at 5.) Mr. Roybal seeks
$100, 000, 000, 000.00 in damages. (Id. at 6.)
the Court authorizes party to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court must “dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In determining whether a complaint fails
to state a claim for relief under this statute, the Court
employs the same standard used for analyzing motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Kay v.
Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007).
this standard, “‘[t]he court's function . . .
is . . . to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint
alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief
may be granted' under Rule 8(a)(2)” of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Phillips v. Bell, 365
Fed.Appx. 133, 137 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (quoting
Smith v. United States,561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th
Cir. 2009)). Rule 8 requires that a complaint contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), and further provides that “[e]ach allegation
must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(d)(1). “Rule 8 serves the important purpose ...