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.

Oblad v. Smith

United States District Court, D. Utah

May 8, 2019

BRIAN OBLAD, Plaintiff,
v.
LORI SMITH et al., Defendants.

          ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & MEMORANDUM DECISION

          JILL N. PARRISH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         District 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, [1] the Court orders Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims.

         SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES

         Second Amended Complaint:

(a) does not properly affirmatively link defendants to civil-rights violations (e.g., no defendant is linked to inadequate-medical-treatment claim regarding dental emergency).
(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 and Parole.
(g) has claims apparently regarding current confinement; however, the complaint was apparently not drafted with the help of contract attorneys.

         GUIDANCE FOR 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 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 ...


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.