United States District Court, D. Utah
SHANE R. CARL, Plaintiff,
STATE OF UTAH et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
TENA CAMPBELL United States District Court
Shane R. Carl, filed this pro se prisoner
civil-rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983
(2019), in forma pauperis, see 28
id. § 1915. The Court now screens the Amended
Complaint, (Doc. No. 21), and orders Plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further
Deficiencies in Amended Complaint
improperly names a judge as a defendant, apparently without
considering judicial immunity. (See below.)
names State of Utah as a defendant which violates
governmental-immunity principles. (See below.)
improperly names public defender as defendant, apparently
without considering that public defenders are not considered
to be state actors subject to suit under § 1983.
alleges conspiracy claims that are too vague. (See below.)
improperly names prosecutors as defendants, apparently
without considering prosecutorial immunity. (See below.)
claims appearing to be based on conditions of current
confinement; however, the complaint was apparently not
submitted using the legal help Plaintiff is entitled to by
his institution under the Constitution. See Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996) (requiring prisoners be
given "'adequate law libraries or
adequate assistance from persons trained in the
law' . . . to ensure that inmates . . . have a reasonably
adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims
challenging their convictions or conditions of
confinement") (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430
U.S. 817, 828 (1977) (emphasis added)).
Instructions to Plaintiff
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
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 ...