Carl v. State of Utah et al, No. 1:2018cv00077 - Document 25 (D. Utah 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT AMENDED COMPLAINT: It is hereby ordered that: 1)Plaintiff must within THIRTY DAYS cure the Amended Complaint's 21 deficiencies noted. 2) The Clerks Office shall mail Plaintiff Pro S e Litigant Guide with a form habeas petition for Plaintiff to use should choose to file an amended petition. 3) If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the deficiencies according to this Order's instructions, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 05/23/2019. (kpf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carl v. State of Utah et al Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH SHANE R. CARL, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF UTAH et al., MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 1:18-CV-77-TC Defendants. District Judge Tena Campbell Plaintiff, Shane R. Carl, filed this pro se prisoner civil-rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2019), in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. The Court now screens the Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 21), and orders Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims. A. Deficiencies in Amended Complaint Complaint: (a) improperly names a judge as a defendant, apparently without considering judicial immunity. (See below.) (b) names State of Utah as a defendant which violates governmental-immunity principles. (See below.) (c) improperly names public defender as defendant, apparently without considering that public defenders are not considered to be state actors subject to suit under § 1983. (d) alleges conspiracy claims that are too vague. (See below.) (e) improperly names prosecutors as defendants, apparently without considering prosecutorial immunity. (See below.) (f) has claims appearing to be based on conditions of current confinement; however, the complaint was apparently not submitted using the legal help Plaintiff is entitled to by his Dockets.Justia.com institution under the Constitution. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996) (requiring prisoners be given "'adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law' . . . to ensure that inmates . . . have a reasonably adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims challenging their convictions or conditions of confinement") (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977) (emphasis added)). B. Instructions to Plaintiff Rule 8 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). Pro se 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). Plaintiff should consider the following points before refiling Plaintiff’s complaint. First, the revised complaint must stand entirely on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by reference, any portion of the original complaint. See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating amended complaint supersedes original). 2 Second, 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, 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)). Third, Plaintiff cannot 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 liability). Fourth, "denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983." Gallagher v. Shelton, No. 09-3113, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 25787, at *11 (10th Cir. Nov. 24, 2009). • Judicial Immunity It is well settled that judges "are absolutely immune from suit unless they act in 'clear absence of all jurisdiction,' meaning that even erroneous or malicious acts are not proper bases for § 1983 claims." Segler v. Felfam Ltd. P'ship, No. 08-1466, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10152, at *4 (10th Cir. May 11, 2009) (unpublished) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)). The judge here very well may have been acting in a judicial capacity in presiding over Plaintiff’s case(s); if so, such actions are entitled to absolute immunity. See Doran v. Sanchez, No. 08-2042, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17987, at *2 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2008) (unpublished). 3 • State Immunity Next, regarding claims that have been made against the State, generally, the Eleventh Amendment prevents "suits against a state unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit, or if Congress has validly abrogated the state's immunity." Ray v. McGill, No. CIV-06-0334-HE, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51632, at *8 (W.D. Okla. July 26, 2006) (unpublished) (citing Lujan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 F.3d 1511, 1522 (10th Cir. 1995); Eastwood v. Dep't of Corrs., 846 F.2d 627, 631 (10th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff asserts no basis for determining that the State has waived its immunity or that it has been abrogated by Congress. Because any claims against the State appear to be precluded by Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court believes it has no subject-matter jurisdiction to consider them. See id. at *9. • Conspiracy As to Plaintiff's conspiracy claim, he "must specifically plead 'facts tending to show agreement and concerted action.'" Beedle v. Wilson, 422 F.3d 1059, 1073 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sooner Prods. Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff has not met this responsibility in his current complaint; his vague assertions that multiple people were involved in effecting breaches of his civil rights, and, therefore, a conspiracy must be involved, are not enough. He must assert more detail to pursue this claim further. • Prosecutorial Immunity A prosecutor acting within the scope of his duties enjoys absolute immunity from suit under § 1983. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424 (1976). The prosecutor’s acts, as alleged by Plaintiff, appear to relate to advocacy before the court. This defendant therefore may be entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from this lawsuit. 4 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the Amended Complaint’s deficiencies noted above. (2) The Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a form habeas petition for Plaintiff to use should Plaintiff choose to file an amended petition. (3) If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to this Order's instructions, this action will be dismissed without further notice. DATED this 23rd day of May, 2019. BY THE COURT: JUDGE TENA CAMPBELL United States District Court 5
]]>
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.
