United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS & REQUIRING CURING OF DEFICIENT AMENDED
CAMPBELL JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
inmate Karl Losee, filed this pro se civil rights
suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983
(2019). The Court now grants Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 23), and orders Plaintiff to
file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies before
further pursuing claims.
(a) does not affirmatively link Defendants to most
(b) appears to inappropriately allege civil-rights violations
on respondeat-superior theory.
(c) does not state basis for violation regarding failure to
provide personal assistant.
(d) appears to inappropriately try to state
“takings” claim. See Losee v. Petermann,
No. 2:13-CV-263-TS (D. Utah Mar. 31, 2016) (dismissing
similar claims in Plaintiff's past case).
(e) does not state how lack of records violates federal law.
(f) alleges possible constitutional violations resulting in
injuries that appear to be prohibited by 42 U.S.C.S. §
1997e(e) (2019), which reads, "No Federal civil action
may be brought by a prisoner . . . for mental or emotional
injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of a
physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.”
(g) does not appear to recognize that Defendants' failure
to follow their own promises or jail policy (e.g., regarding
grievances) does not necessarily equal federal constitutional
(h) inappropriately alleges civil-rights violations on basis
of denied grievances.
(i) needs clarification regarding unnecessary-rigor cause of
action under Utah Constitution. (See below.)
(j) does not adequately state claim of inadequate medical
treatment. (See below.)
(k) shows confusion about how to state claim of failure to
protect. (See below.)
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).
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