United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
NUFFER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Vivek Lakhumna, 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 Second Amended
Complaint, (Doc. No. 14), under its statutory review
function,  the Court orders Plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further
AMENDED COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES
(a) does not properly affirmatively link Defendants to
civil-rights violations (e.g., Sgt. Messenger).
(b) is not on the form complaint required by the Court.
(c) appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations
on respondeat-superior theory (e.g., Jail Commander Irene
(d) improperly asserts a retaliation claim. (See below.)
(e) needs clarification regarding Equal Protection Clause
cause of action. (See below.)
(f) does not appear to state a proper legal-access claim.
(g) is perhaps supplemented with claims from complaints filed
before the Second Amended Complaint, which claims should be
included in the third amended complaint, if filed, and will
not be treated further by the Court unless properly included.
(h) has 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. 1989).
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(s). 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
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. ...