United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER 1) TO CURE DEFICIENT
AMENDED COMPLAINT; 2) DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL; AND
3) GRANTING MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
N. PARRISH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Richard Stephen Terry (“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 Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 9),
under its statutory review function, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A,  the court orders Plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further
pursuing his claims.
court has identified several deficiencies with
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint including that it:
1. Does not properly affirmatively link Defendant to
2. Is not on the form complaint required by the court.
3. Needs clarification regarding what constitutes a cause of
action under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) (see
4. Names State of Utah as a defendant, which violates
governmental-immunity principles (see below).
5. Possibly asserts claims on the constitutional validity of
his sentence, which should be brought in a habeas-corpus
petition, not civil-rights complaint.
6. Asserts claims possibly invalidated by the rule in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (see below).
7. Does not state what relief is requested.
8. 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 ...