United States District Court, D. Utah
DIANE R. PRIGGE, Plaintiff,
SGT. STEWART et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
& MEMORANDUM DECISION
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,  the Court orders Plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further
in Second Amended Complaint
(a) does not affirmatively link some defendants to
(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
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 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).
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 ...