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.

Gonzalez v. SGT. Nelson

United States District Court, D. Utah

May 28, 2019

TEODORO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. NELSON et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT COMPLAINT

          TENA CAMPBELL JUDGE United States District Court

         Plaintiff, inmate Teodoro Gonzalez, 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 Complaint, (Doc. No. 2-1), under its statutory review function, [2] the Court orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims.

         COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES

         Complaint:

(a) does not properly affirmatively link defendants to civil-rights violations.
(b) appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations on respondeat-superior theory (e.g., deputy warden and Warden Scott Crowther).
(c) names some possible defendants only in the text, not in Complaint's heading (everyone but Sgt. Nelson).
(d) does not, as it must, provide individual names for several of Defendants (e.g., “contract attorneys, ” “OMR team, ” “deputy warden, ” and “grievance personnel”).
(e) is not on the form complaint supplied by the Court, as required.
(f) alleges conspiracy claims that are too vague. (See below.)
(g) improperly asks the Court to terminate the employment of Defendant Nelson, which is not an available remedy in this case.
(h) needs clarification regarding an unnecessary rigor cause of action under the Utah Constitution. (See below.)
(i) has claims apparently regarding current confinement; however, complaint apparently not drafted with contract attorneys' help.

         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 meeting 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 ...


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.