Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Goich v. Wood

United States District Court, D. Utah

May 29, 2019

ELI ALAN GOICH, Plaintiff,
DR. JOHN WOOD et al., Defendants.


          Jill N. Parrish United States District Court Judge.

         Pro se plaintiff, inmate Eli Alan Goich, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [1] in forma pauperis, see 28 Id. § 1915. Having now screened the Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 7), under its statutory review function, [2] the court orders plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims.


         Plaintiff's Amended Complaint:

         (a) does not affirmatively link Defendants to civil rights violations.

         (b) improperly names Weber County “medical staff” as § 1983 defendants, when each staff member must be named individually and affirmatively linked to each alleged constitutional violation

         (c) possibly tries to state § 1983 claims in violation of municipal-liability doctrine (see below).

         (d) names some possible defendants only in the text, not in Complaint's heading.

         (e) needs clarification regarding claims of inadequate medical treatment (see below).

         (f) is not on the form complaint required by the court.

         (g) needs clarification regarding what constitutes a cause of action under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) (see below).

         (h) names State of Utah entity as a defendant which violates governmental-immunity principles (see below).

         (i) 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)).


         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 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).

         Pro se 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).

         Plaintiff should consider these general points before filing an amended complaint:

         (1) 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 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.[3]

         (2) The 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 violations occurred.

         (3) 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, ” ...

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.