Shook v. United States of America et al, No. 2:2013cv00841 - Document 32 (D. Utah 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER: It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, under 28 USCS 1915(e)(2)(B)(2016), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. neither liberal interpretation of Plaintiff's claims nor the many opportunities Plaintiff has had to amend have led to a different result. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 07/28/2016. (kpf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shook v. United States of America et al Doc. 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH J. SHOOK, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER v. A. ORME et al., Case No. 2:13-CV-841 DAK Defendants. District Judge Dale A. Kimball Former inmate/Plaintiff, J. Shook, filed this pro se civil rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2016), proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 id. § 1915. His Third Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening. See id. § 1915(e).1 Screening Analysis A. Standard of Review This Court shall dismiss any claims in a complaint filed in forma pauperis if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. See id. § 1915(e)(2)(B). "Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend." Perkins v. Kan. Dep't of Corrs., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). When reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint the Court "presumes all of plaintiff's factual allegations are true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991). 1 The Court notes that it has issued already two orders in this case in the past that have identified deficiencies in earlier iterations of the complaint and given Plaintiff guidance for how to cure the deficiencies. Dockets.Justia.com Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se the Court must construe his pleadings "liberally" and hold them "to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. at 1110. However, "[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff’s complaint does not relieve [him] of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based." Id. While Plaintiff need not describe every fact in specific detail, "conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based." Id. B. Plaintiff's Allegations Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint cursorily claims only that “the defendants did knowingly deprive him of constitutional rights speciffically [sic] the 14th Amendment to U.S.C. granting equal protection under the color of law.” This vague claim is brought against A. Orme, former Juab County sheriff; A. Taylor, investigating officer; and J. Elderidge, Juab County prosecuting attorney. 2. Affirmative Link The complaint must clearly state what each individual defendant 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, No. 08-2222, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir. July 20, 2009) (unpublished) (emphasis in original) (quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)). Plaintiff does not identify behavior by Defendants that links them with any particularity to violation of his right to equal protection. Because Plaintiff has done nothing to affirmatively link Defendants to a 2 violation of his right to equal protection, all defendants and potential equal-protection claims are dismissed. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2016), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Neither liberal interpretation of Plaintiff's claims nor the many opportunities Plaintiff has had to amend have led to a different result. DATED this 28th day of July, 2016. BY THE COURT: DALE A. KIMBALL United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
