United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
WADDOUPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
inmate Anthony Jeffrey Christensen, brings this pro
se civil-rights action in forma pauperis. See
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2019); 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Having
screened Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No.
70) under its statutory review function,  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
AMENDED COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES
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
(b) does not link Defendant Bennitt to a constitutional
(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.
(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
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).
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).
should consider these general points before filing his third,