United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
N. Parrish United States District Court Judge.
plaintiff, inmate Eli Alan Goich, brings this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,  in forma pauperis,
see 28 Id. § 1915. Having now screened
the Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 7), under its statutory
review function,  the court orders plaintiff to file an
amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further
does not affirmatively link Defendants to civil rights
improperly names Weber County “medical staff” as
§ 1983 defendants, when each staff member must be named
individually and affirmatively linked to each alleged
possibly tries to state § 1983 claims in violation of
municipal-liability doctrine (see below).
names some possible defendants only in the text, not in
needs clarification regarding claims of inadequate medical
treatment (see below).
not on the form complaint required by the court.
needs clarification regarding what constitutes a cause of
action under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) (see
names State of Utah entity as a defendant which violates
governmental-immunity principles (see below).
asserts 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 ensure "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. 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. 2008)).
Plaintiff should also include, as much as possible, specific
dates or at least estimates of when alleged constitutional
Each cause of action, together with the facts and citations
that directly support it, should be stated separately.
Plaintiff should be as brief as possible while still using
enough words to fully explain the “who, ”
“what, ” ...