United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS COMPLAINT AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED
J. SHELBY DISTRICT JUDGE.
Rene Cardona, a Utah State Prison inmate, 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 concludes that
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint is well taken
and thus dismisses the Complaint and orders Plaintiff to file
an amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further
pursuing claims. The Court provides the following guidance
for the amended complaint.
Deficiencies in Complaint
(a) does not affirmatively link Defendant to his claim of
inadequate medical treatment but instead vaguely asserts that
Defendant merely did not approve necessary treatment, perhaps
provided by other personnel.
(b) does not adequately state a claim of inadequate medical
treatment (see below).
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
legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not
been pleaded." Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188,
1197 (10th Cir. 1989).
should consider the following points before refiling
Plaintiff's 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
complaint. See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612
(10th Cir. 1998) (stating amended complaint supersedes
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 Cir. July 20, 2009)
(unpublished) (emphasis in original) (quoting Robbins v.
Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)).
Plaintiff cannot name an individual as a defendant based
solely on his or her supervisory position. See Mitchell
v. Maynard, 80 F.2d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating
supervisory status alone does not support § 1983
"denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection
to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by
plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under
§ 1983." Gallagher v. Shelton, No.
09-3113, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 25787, at *11 (10th Cir. Nov.