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.

Roybal v. State

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

August 27, 2018

RUBEN ROYBAL, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF UTAH; MELANIE HOOTEN; JOLANDA REYES; TIMOTHY JAMES TRUJILLO, JR.; POLLACK FAMILY, Defendants.

          CLARK WADDOUPS DISTRICT JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          EVELYN J. FURSE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pro se Plaintiff Ruben Roybal, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the Complaint in this matter in June 2018. In July 2018, the Court[1] 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.)

         The 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.

         BACKGROUND

         On June 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.)

         Mr. 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.)

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Whenever 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).

         Under 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 ...


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.