United States District Court, D. Utah
ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT AMENDED COMPLAINT &
WADDOUPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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. 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.
(a) does not properly affirmatively link defendants to
(b) appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations
(e.g., Defendant Braithwaite) on a respondeat-superior
(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)
(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331, 332 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“[T]here is no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.”).
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