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.

Daniels v. Utah State Prison

United States District Court, D. Utah

April 29, 2019

JEFFREY J. DANIELS, Plaintiff,
v.
UTAH STATE PRISON et al., Defendants.

          ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT COMPLAINT & MEMORANDUM DECISION

          TENA CAMPBELL JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Plaintiff, inmate Jeffrey J. Daniels, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2019), in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. The Court now screens the Complaint and orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims.[1]

         COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES

         Complaint:

(a) does not affirmatively link Defendants to civil-rights violations.
(b) appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations on a respondeat-superior theory.
(c) is perhaps supplemented with claims from documents filed since the Complaint, which claims should be included in an amended complaint, if filed, and will not be treated further by the Court unless properly included.
(d) does not state a proper legal-access claim (see below).
(e) alleges possible constitutional violations resulting in injuries that appear to be prohibited by 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(e) (2018), which reads, "No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner . . . for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of a physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.”
(f) inappropriately asserts a retaliation claim. (See below.)
(g) raises issues of classification change 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 Boyd v. Werholtz, 443 Fed.Appx. 331, 332 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“[T]here is no independent constitutional right to state administrative grievance procedures.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.”).
(i) improperly names Utah State Prison as a defendant, though it is not an independent legal entity that can sue or be sued.
(j) has claims apparently regarding current confinement; however, the complaint was apparently not drafted with the ...

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.