United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
CAMPBELL JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Carl Winfield, brings this pro se civil-rights
action, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2019),
in forma pauperis, see 28 Id.
§ 1915. Having now screened the Third Amended Complaint,
(Doc. No. 23), under its statutory review function,
Court orders Plaintiff to file a fourth amended complaint to
cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims.
AMENDED COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES
• 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
• possibly shows confusion about how to state claim of
failure to protect. (See below.)
• possibly asserts claims on the constitutional validity
of his sentence, which should be brought in a habeas-corpus
petition, not civil-rights complaint.
• asserts claims possibly invalidated by the rule in
Heck. (See below.)
• improperly names “Adult Probation and
Parole” as § 1983 defendant, though it is not an
independent legal entity that can sue or be sued.
• has claims apparently regarding current confinement;
however, complaint apparently not drafted with contract
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
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 an amended
(1) The revised complaint must stand entirely on its own and
shall not refer to, or incorporate by reference, any portion
of past complaints. See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d
609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating amended complaint
supersedes original). The amended complaint may also not be
added to after it is filed without moving for
(2) The complaint must clearly state what each
defendant--typically, a named government employee--did to
violate Plaintiff's civil rights. See Bennett v.
Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976) (stating
personal participation of each named defendant is essential
allegation in civil-rights action). "To state a claim, a
complaint must 'make clear exactly who is
alleged to have done what to
whom.'" Stone v. Albert, 338
Fed.Appx. 757, 759 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (emphasis
in original) (quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d
1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)). Plaintiff should also include,
as much as possible, specific dates or at least estimates of
when alleged constitutional violations occurred.
(3) Each cause of action, together with the facts and
citations that directly support it, should be stated
separately. Plaintiff should be as brief as possible while
still using enough words to fully explain the “who,
” “what, ” “where, ”
“when, ” and “why” of each claim.
(4) Plaintiff may not name an individual as a defendant based
solely on his or her supervisory position. See Mitchell
v. Maynard, 80 F.2d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating
supervisory status alone does not support § 1983
(5) Grievance denial alone with no connection to
“violation of constitutional rights alleged by
plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under
§ 1983." Gallagher v. Shelton, ...