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.

Prigge v. Stewart

United States District Court, D. Utah

April 30, 2019

DIANE R. PRIGGE, Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. STEWART et al., Defendants.

          ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & MEMORANDUM DECISION

          DAVID NUFFER JUDGE

         Plaintiff, inmate Dianne R. Prigge, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2019), in forma pauperis, see 28 Id. § 1915. Having now screened the Second Amended Complaint under its statutory review function, id. § 1915A, [1] the Court orders Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims.

         Deficiencies in Second Amended Complaint

         Second Amended Complaint:

(a) does not affirmatively link some defendants to civil-rights violations.
(b) possibly inappropriately alleges civil-rights violations on respondeat-superior theory.
(c) does not state proper legal-access claim (see below).
(d) appears to try to bring claims against other defendants who are referred to only in text and not named in the Second Amended Complaint's heading.
(e) raises issues of classification decision (e.g., eleven months “in the hole”) in a way that does not support a cause of action (see below).
(f) improperly names Utah County Jail as a defendant, though it is not an independent legal entity that can sue or be sued.

         Instructions to 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 h[er] alleged injury, and [s]he must provide such facts if the court is to determine whether [s]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).

         Plaintiff 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 ...


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.