United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
N. PARRISH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
inmate Wayne Bastemeyer (“Plaintiff”), brings
this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915. Having now screened the Complaint, (Doc. No. 3), under
its statutory review function, see 28 U.S.C. §
1915A,  the court orders Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further
pursuing his claims.
court has identified several deficiencies with
Plaintiff's Complaint including that it:
1. Does not properly affirmatively link several defendants to
2. Appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations
on respondeat-superior theory (e.g., Warden Larry Benzon, Dr.
Burnham, and Tony Washington).
3. Names some possible defendants only in the text, not in
4. Does not appear to recognize that Defendants' failure
to follow their own promises or jail policy (e.g., regarding
grievances) does not necessarily equal a federal
5. Inappropriately alleges civil-rights violations on the
basis of denied grievances.
6. Has claims apparently regarding current confinement;
however, the complaint was apparently not drafted with
contract attorneys' help.
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 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 can neither “supply additional facts, nor ...