Harley v. Sparks et al, No. 2:2013cv00213 - Document 13 (D. Utah 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order to Amend Deficient Complaint-Plaintiff shall have THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order to cure the deficiencies noted in order; the Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide; and, if Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to the instructions here this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge David Sam on 6/20/13. (jmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
f\\..EO 1\1 U.S.O\SlR\Cl COU IN THE PlifJtTlJ< O'l%'tES DISTRICT COURT .M\R-~HE DISTRICT OF UTAH tun 6\S1R\Cl Of UTA\i DONALD A. HARLEY, v Rl\ i ,: Of..PUi'f elf.. MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Case No. 2:13-CV-213 DS v. District Judge David Sam LT. D. SPARKS et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, Donald A. Harley, an inmate at Utah State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights suit. (2013). Plainti 28 id. 1915. See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. See Reviewing the Complaint under § 1915(e), the Court determines that it is deficient. Deficiencies in Complaint Complaint: (a) does not make an affirmative link between Defendants Sparks, Pope, Benzon and Turley, and the specific breach of each of Plaintiff's civil rights. (b) has claims appearing to be based on conditions of current confinement; however, the complaint was not submitted through contract attorneys. Instructions to Plaintiff Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a complaint is required to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is ent led to ief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The requirements of Rule 8(a) are intended to guarantee "that defendants enjoy fair notice what the claims against them are and the grounds upon which they rest." Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., aff'd, TV Commnc'ns Network, 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991), 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992). Pro se lit{gants are not excused from compliance with the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8. "This is so because a pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his alleged ury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted." 1106, 1009 (10th Cir. 1991). Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d Moreover, "it is not the proper function of the Court to assume the role of advocate for a pro se litigant." at 1110. additional facts, Thus, the Court cannot "supply [or] construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded." 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Dunn v. White, r. 1989). Plaintiff should consider the following points before ling his complaint. rst, the revised complaint must stand entirely on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by re renee, any portion of the original complaint. 2 See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 r. (10th complaint supercedes original). 1998) (stating amended Second, the complaint must clearly state what each individual defendant did to violate Plaintiff's civil rights. 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976) See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, (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.'" 2222, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir. (emphasis in original) position. 1996) y 20, 2009) (unpublished) (quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)). someone as a Stone v. Albert, No. 08 Third, Plaintiff cannot name fendant based solely on his or her supervisory See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. (stating supervisory status alone is insufficient to support liability under § 1983). 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). And, finally, Plaintiff is warned that litigants who have had three in forma pauperis cases dismissed as frivolous or merit ss will be restricted from filing future lawsuits without prepaying fees. 3 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff shall have THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order to cure the deficiencies noted above; (2) the Clerk's Office shall mail Plainti a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide; and, (3) if Plaintiff ils to timely cure the above deficiencies according to the instructions here this action will be dismissed without further notice. DATED this ,;/.(J";- day of June, 2013. BY THE COURT: JUDGE DAVID SAM United States District Court 4
]]>
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.
