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.

Christensen v. Baithwaite

United States District Court, D. Utah

March 29, 2019

ANTHONY JEFFREY CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT BRAITHWAITE et al., Defendants.

          ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT AMENDED COMPLAINT & MEMORANDUM DECISION

          CLARK WADDOUPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff, inmate Anthony Jeffrey Christensen, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2019), in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff effected service of process of the deficient Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 5), on Defendants before the Court performed its statutory review function. Id. § 1915a.[1] Defendants then filed a summary-judgment motion, (ECF No. 42), without the benefit of the review. The Court therefore denies Defendants' summary-judgment motion and screens the Amended Complaint, ordering Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims.

         AMENDED COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES

         Amended Complaint:

(a) does not properly affirmatively link defendants to civil-rights violations.
(b) appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations (e.g., Defendant Braithwaite) on a respondeat-superior theory.
(c) does not state a proper legal-access claim. (See below.)
(d) inappropriately alleges civil-rights violations on the basis of denied grievances.
(e) inappropriately asserts a retaliation claim. (See below.)
(f) does not allege Plaintiff “was a member of any protected class, ” as it must to state an Equal Protection Claim. See Carr v. Zwally, No. 18-1197, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 509, at *8, n.5 (10th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019) (unpublished).
(g) raises issues of classification change (e.g., administrative segregation) in a way that does not support a cause of action. (See below.)
(h) inappropriately alleges a constitutional right to a grievance process. Boyd v. Werholtz, 443 Fed.Appx. 331, 332 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“[T]here is no independent constitutional right to state administrative grievance procedures. Nor does the state's voluntary provision of administrative grievance process create a liberty interest in that process.”).

         GUIDANCE FOR PLAINTIFF

         Rule 8 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).

         Pro se 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 ...


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.