United States District Court, D. Utah
ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
& MEMORANDUM DECISION
N. PARRISH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
Judge Jill N. Parrish Plaintiff, inmate, Brian Olbad, 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 pursuing claims.
AMENDED COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES
(a) does not properly affirmatively link defendants to
civil-rights violations (e.g., no defendant is linked to
inadequate-medical-treatment claim regarding dental
(b) possibly asserts claims regarding the constitutional
validity of his imprisonment, which should be brought in a
habeas-corpus petition, not a civil-rights complaint.
(c) asserts claims that are possibly invalidated by the rule
in Heck (see below).
(d) fails to state a constitutional claim regarding parole
which is not a federal right (see below).
(e) suggests a violation of the rule in Labrum v. Utah
State Bd. of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902 (1993); however,
Labrum is Utah law so does not set forth a federal
civil-rights cause of action.
(f) does not acknowledge the potential Eleventh Amendment
immunity attached to decisions of the Utah Board of Pardons
(g) has claims apparently regarding current confinement;
however, the complaint was apparently not drafted with the
help of contract attorneys.
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