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.

Brown v. State

United States District Court, D. Utah

May 1, 2019

FRANK JOSEPH BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF UTAH, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER ON DEFICIENT AMENDED COMPLAINT

          TENA CAMPBELL JUDGE.

         Judge Tena Campbell Plaintiff, inmate Frank Joseph Brown, brings this pro se civil-rights action, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2019), [1] in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. Having now screened the Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 7), under its statutory review function, [2] the Court orders Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims.

         A. Deficiencies in Amended Complaint

         Amended Complaint:

(a) appears to try to bring claims against other defendants who are referred to only in text and not named in the Amended Complaint's heading and does not effectively affirmatively link the potential defendants to claims or causes of action.
(b) suggests claims that have not been affirmatively linked to any alleged defendant.
(c) brings civil-rights claims against Rudy Hernandez, who is not properly named, as he is a private citizen, not a state actor.
(d) improperly names Michael Langford as a defendant, without considering that defense attorneys generally are not state actors subject to suit under § 1983.
(e) appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations on a respondeat-superior theory.
(f) does not state what relief is requested.
(g) possibly asserts claims on the constitutional validity of his imprisonment, which should be brought in a habeas-corpus petition, not civil-rights complaint (e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel, withholding of exculpatory evidence, competence to plead guilty).
(h) asserts claims possibly invalidated by the rule in Heck (see below).
(i) is not on the form required by the Court.
(j) names State of Utah as a defendant which violates governmental-immunity principles (see below).
(k) alleges conspiracy claims that are too vague (see below).
(1) improperly names prosecutor as defendant, apparently without considering prosecutorial immunity (see below).
(m) names University of Utah Medical Center as a defendant, when it is not a proper defendant under § 1983.
(n) evinces a misunderstanding of the cause of action for inadequate medical treatment.
(o) is apparently supplemented with information and claims from documents (i.e., affidavit and memorandum in support of amended complaint), which claims should be included in a second amended complaint, if filed, and will not be ...

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.