United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING FAILURE TO CURE DEFICIENT SECOND AMENDED
N. PARRISH JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• February 10, 2017
Submission of prisoner civil-rights complaint.
(Doc. No. 3.)
• January 3, 2018
Order granting Plaintiff's motion to amend his
complaint, giving guidance on amending the
complaint, and denying two motions for appointed
counsel. (Doc. No. 48.)
• July 3, 2018
Order screening Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 49),
requiring Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies in a
second amended complaint, giving guidance on
amending the complaint, and denying Plaintiff's
third and fourth motions for appointed counsel.
(Doc. No. 54.)
• July 19, 2018
Order granting sixty-day extension to file second
amended complaint. (Doc. No. 57.)
• August 20, 2018
Second Amended Complaint filed. (Doc. No. 60.)
• May 8, 2019
Order screening Second Amended Complaint, requiring
Plaintiff to cure deficiencies in a third amended
complaint (due June 7, 2019), and giving guidance
on amending the complaint. (Doc. No. 65.)
• May 29, 2019
Filing of Plaintiff's motion to stay and to
transfer all exhibits from this case to state
court. (Doc. No. 68.)
motion to stay is not well founded. It is based on his
“transition out of the prison to the streets.”
(Id.) However, the court has been patiently trying
to get a valid complaint on the docket for over two years
now, all the while providing guidance and resources.
Plaintiff has had plenty of time to get this done; thus, his
motion is denied.
motion for the court to “transfer exhibits filed in
this case to be taken to 3d District Court . . . [and] make
exhibits & documents available to [Plaintiff]” is
also denied. There are six docket entries of exhibits,
totaling 134 pages and an audio disc. This is a burdensome
request without any support; his motion is therefore denied.
EXPLANATION OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT'S
(a) does not properly affirmatively link defendants to
civil-rights violations (e.g., no defendant is linked to
inadequate-medical-treatment claim regarding dental
(b) possibly asserts claims regarding the constitutional
validity of his imprisonment, which should be brought in a
habeas-corpus petition, not a civil-rights complaint.
(c) asserts claims that are possibly invalidated by the rule
in Heck (see below).
(d) fails to state a constitutional claim regarding parole
which is not a federal right (see below).
(e) suggests a violation of the rule in Labrum v. Utah
State Bd. of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902 (1993); however,
Labrum is Utah law so does not set forth a federal
civil-rights cause of action.
(f) does not acknowledge the potential Eleventh Amendment
immunity attached to decisions of the Utah Board of Pardons
(g) has claims apparently regarding current confinement;
however, the complaint was apparently not drafted with the
help of contract attorneys.