United States District Court, D. Utah
ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT COMPLAINT & MEMORANDUM
STEWART JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
inmate Anthony Evans, 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.
(a) does not affirmatively link Defendant to civil-rights
(b) appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations
on a respondeat-superior theory.
(c) is not on the form required by the Court.
(d) does not identify Defendant by name.
(e) does not clarify whether Plaintiff is still held in Salt
Lake County Jail as it must to state a valid claim under
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA). Pfeil v. Lampert, 603 Fed.Appx. 665, 668
(10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (“'RLUIPA claims
regarding prison conditions become moot if the inmate
plaintiff is released from custody.'”).
(f) has claims appearing to be based on conditions of
confinement; however, the complaint was apparently not
submitted using the legal help Plaintiff is entitled to by
his institution under the Constitution. See Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996) (requiring prisoners be
given "'adequate law libraries or
adequate assistance from persons trained in the
law' . . . to ensure that inmates . . . have a reasonably
adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims
challenging their convictions or conditions of
confinement") (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430
U.S. 817, 828 (1977) (emphasis added)).
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 or any other document. See Murray v.