United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
N. Parrish District Judge.
inmate Justin Allen Fox, 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. 5), 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
improperly names Carbon County Sheriff's Department and
Jail as § 1983 defendants, as they are not independent
legal entities that can sue or be sued. See Burnett v. Reno
County Comm'n, No. 18-3160-SAC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
32844, at *6 (D. Kan. Mar. 1, 2019) (“Police
departments . . . are not suable entities under § 1983,
because they lack legal identities apart from the
municipality.”) (quotation marks and citations
omitted); Smith v. Lawton Corr. Facility, No. CIV-18-110-C,
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45488, at * 5 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2018)
(stating correctional facilities “not suable entities
in a § 1983 action”).
possibly tries to state § 1983 claims in violation of
municipal-liability doctrine (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)).
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.
should consider these general points before filing an amended
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 609, 612
(10th Cir. 1998) (stating amended complaint supersedes
original). The amended complaint may also not be added to
after it is filed without moving for amendment.
complaint must clearly state what each defendant--typically,
a named government employee--did to violate Plaintiff's
civil rights. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63
(10th Cir. 1976) (stating personal participation of each
named defendant is essential allegation in civil-rights
action). "To state a claim, a complaint must 'make
clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to
whom.'" Stone v. Albert, 338 Fed.Appx. 757, (10th
Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (emphasis in original) (quoting
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. ...