United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
N. PARRISH JUDGE
inmate Lon Harvey Kennard, brings this pro se
civil-rights action, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983
(2019),  in forma pauperis, see
28 Id. § 1915. Having now screened the
Complaint, (Doc. No. 3-2), under its statutory review
function,  the Court orders Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further
does not properly affirmatively link defendants to some
civil-rights violations (e.g., inadequate medical care and
failure to protect).
does not adequately state a claim of inadequate medical
treatment (see below).
names some defendants only in text, not in Complaint's
brings civil-rights claims against several attorneys,
witnesses, and business people and entities, who are not
properly named, as they are private citizens, not state
actors, under § 1983.
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).
asserts claims possibly invalidated by the rule in
Heck (see below).
names State of Utah as a defendant which violates
governmental-immunity principles (see below).
improperly names prosecutors as defendants, apparently
without considering prosecutorial immunity (see below).
states crimes by Defendants must be redressed; however, a
federal civil-rights is not the proper place to address
claims apparently regarding current confinement; however,
complaint apparently not drafted with 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