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.

Christensen v. Braithwaite

United States District Court, D. Utah

May 30, 2019

ANTHONY JEFFREY CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT BRAITHWAITE et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

          CLARK WADDOUPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, inmate Anthony Jeffrey Christensen, brings this pro se civil-rights action in forma pauperis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2019);[1] 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Having screened Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 70) under its statutory review function, [2] the Court HERBY ORDERS Plaintiff to file a third, and final, amended complaint to cure the deficiencies contained in his Second Amended Complaint so that he may pursue his claims.

         SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES

         Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint:

(a) does not properly affirmatively link defendants to some civil-rights violations (e.g., specifying who opened legal mail, copied legal materials, denied hearings regarding administrative segregation).
(b) does not link Defendant Bennitt to a constitutional violation.
(c) does not appear to recognize that Defendants' failure to follow their own promises or jail policy does not necessarily equal a federal constitutional violation.
(d) does not state a claim for failure to protect when Plaintiff is the one who physically assaulted a fellow inmate, not the other way around.
(e) does not appear to state a proper legal-access claim. (See below.)
(f) improperly asserts a retaliation claim. (See below.)
(g) raises issues of classification change (e.g., administrative segregation) in a way that may not support a cause of action. (See below.)
(h) is not on the form complaint supplied by the Court, as required.

         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 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 his third, ...


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.