Quintana v. Quintana et al, No. 2:2022cv00275 - Document 25 (D. Utah 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT COMPLAINT: Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the Complaint's deficiencies noted by filing a document entitled, "Amended Complaint," that does not refer to or include a ny other document. For the time being, the Court will accept one document from Plaintiff--the required amended complaint--which may not be longer than ten pages. Any further filings not invited by the Court shall be returned to sender by the Clerk of Court. Denying 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel. No further prompting is needed from Plaintiff. Indeed, any further motions for appointed counsel shall be returned to sender by the Clerk of Court. Signed by Judge Bruce S. Jenkins on 07/10/2023. (kpf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Quintana v. Quintana et al Doc. 25 Case 2:22-cv-00275-BSJ Document 25 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.311 Page 1 of 8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH CHASTITY QUINTANA, Plaintiff, v. JERLINE QUINTANA et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT COMPLAINT Case No. 2:22-CV-275-BSJ District Judge Bruce S. Jenkins Plaintiff, inmate Chastity Quintana, brings this pro se civil-rights action against state and officials.' Having now screened the Complaint, (ECF No. 6), under its statutory review function,2 1 The federal statute creating a "civil action for deprivation ofrights" reads, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ... , subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. 42 u.s.c.s. § 1983 (2023). 2 The screening statute reads: (a) Screening.-The court shall review ... a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. (b) Grounds for dismissal.-On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A (2023). Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00275-BSJ Document 25 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.312 Page 2 of 8 the Court orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims. COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES Complaint: (a) possibly tries to bring civil-rights claims against a private citizen, Jerline Quintana, who is not properly named, as this defendant is apparently not a state actor under § 1983. (b) inappropriately names as defendants all members of the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole and all correctional officers at the Utah State Prison, when each individual must be named separately, with separate constitutional violations identified per individual defendant. (c) does not properly affirmatively link defendants to allegations of civil-rights violations. (See below.) (d) does not appear to recognize Defendants' alleged failures to follow promises, jail policy, or ethics rules do not necessarily equal federal constitutional violations. (e) appears to mistakenly attribute power to the state probation and parole office to determine whether Plaintiff is eligible for parole. - · -- (f) does not properly state causes of action regarding "invasion of privacy," defamation, unauthorized use of a transaction card, or retaliation, in way that attributes a federal constitutional violation to any specific defendant(s). (g) does not appear to recognize that a federal civil-rights complaint is not the proper vehicle for attacking "criminal provisions" of a state protective order. (h) is perhaps attempted to be supplemented with other claims against other defendants, found in documents ranging from letters filed with the Complaint to a letter filed January 10, 2023, none of which will not be treated by the Court unless included in an amended complaint or new case. (ECF Nos. 6-1, 6-2, 6-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19.) GUIDANCE FOR 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 2 Case 2:22-cv-00275-BSJ Document 25 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.313 Page 3 of 8 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 meeting 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. Bellman, 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 these general points before filing an amended complaint: (i) 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). The amended complaint may also not be added to after it is filed without moving for amendment. 3 3 The rule on amending a pleading reads: (a) Amendments Before Trial. (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleadings only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. 3 Case 2:22-cv-00275-BSJ Document 25 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.314 Page 4 of 8 (ii) The complaint must clearly state what each individual defendant--typically, a named government employee--did to violate Plaintiffs 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 F. App'x 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. (iii) 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. Robbins, 519 ··· F.3d at 1248 ("The [Bell Atlantic Corp. v.] Twombly Court was particularly critical of complaints that 'mentioned no specific, time, place, or person involved in the alleged [claim].' [550 U.S. 544, 565] n.10 (2007). Given such a complaint, 'a defendant seeking to respond to plaintiffs conclusory allegations ... would have little idea where to begin.' Id."). (iv) Plaintiff may not name an individual as a defendant based solely on supervisory position. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.2d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating supervisory status alone does not support§ 1983 liability). (v) Grievance denial alone with no connection to "violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983." Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009). 4 Case 2:22-cv-00275-BSJ Document 25 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.315 Page 5 of 8 (vi) "No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under ... Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a) (2023). However, Plaintiff need not include grievance details in his complaint. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that must be raised by Defendants. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,216 (2007). • Affirmative Link [A] plaintiff who brings a constitutional claim under § 1983 can't obtain relief without first satisfying the personal-participation requirement. That is, the plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant "personally participated in the alleged constitutional violation" at issue. Vasquez v. Davis, 882 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2018). Indeed, because § 1983 is a "vehicle[] for imposing personal liability on government officials, we have stressed the need for careful attention to particulars, especially in lawsuits involving multiple defendants." Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210, 1225 (10th Cir. 2013); see also Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008) (explaining that when plaintiff brings § 1983 claims against multiple defendants, "it is particularly important ... that the complaint make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom"); Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 532-33 (10th Cir. 1998)) (holding that district court's analysis of plaintiffs § 1983 claims was "infirm" where district court "lump[ed]" together plaintiffs claims against multiple defendants--"despite the fact that each of the defendants had different powers and duties and took different actions with respect to [plaintiff]"--and "wholly failed to identify specific actions taken by particular defendants that could form the basis of [a constitutional] claim"). Estate of Roemer v. Johnson, 764 F. App'x 784, 790-91 (10th Cir. 2019). "A plaintiffs failure to satisfy this requirement will trigger swift and certain dismissal." Id. at 790 n.5. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit has "gone so far as to suggest that failure to satisfy the personal-participation requirement will not only justify dismissal for failure to state a claim; it will render the plaintiffs claim frivolous." Id. 5 Case 2:22-cv-00275-BSJ Document 25 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.316 Page 6 of 8 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff must within thirty days cure the Complaint's deficiencies noted above by filing a document entitled, "Amended Complaint," that does not refer to or include any other document. (2) The Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a blank-form civil-rights complaint which Plaintiff must use if Plaintiff wishes to pursue an amended complaint. (3) If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to this Order's instructions, this action will be dismissed without further notice. (4) The amended complaint shall not include any claims (a) occurring past the date of the · -complaint, filed April 25 ,-2022, and (b) outside the allegations of transactions and events contained in the Complaint, (ECF No. 6). The Court will not address any such new claims or outside allegations, which will be dismissed. If Plaintiff wishes to raise other claims and allegations, Plaintiff may do so only in a new complaint in a new case. (5) Plaintiff shall not try to serve the amended complaint on Defendants; instead, the Court will perform its screening function and determine itself whether the amended complaint warrants service or dismissal (in part or in full). No motion for service of process is needed. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(d) (2023) ("The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [informapauperis] cases."). (6) Plaintiff must tell the Court of any address change and timely comply with Court orders. See D. Utah Civ. R. 83-l.3(e) ("In all cases, counsel and parties appearing prose must 6 Case 2:22-cv-00275-BSJ Document 25 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.317 Page 7 of 8 notify the clerk's office immediately of any change in address, email address, or telephone number."). Failure to do so may result in this action's dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b) ("If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule-except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19-operates as an adjudication on the merits."). (7) Extensions of time are disfavored, though reasonable extensions may be granted. Any motion for time extension must be filed no later than fourteen days before the deadline to be extended. (8) No direct communication is to take place with any judge. All relevant information, letters, documents, and papers, labeled with case number, are to be directed to the Clerk of Court. (9) Plaintiffs second motion for appointed counsel, (ECF No. 22), is DENIED, for the same reasons stated in a prior order denying appointment of voluntary pro bona counsel, (ECF Nos. 4, 5). That past order stated, "[I]f, after the case is screened, it appears that counsel may be needed or of specific help, the Court may ask an attorney to appear pro bona on Plaintiffs behalf." (ECF No. 5.) No further prompting is needed from Plaintiff. Indeed, any further motions for appointed counsel shall be returned to sender by the Clerk of Court. 7 Case 2:22-cv-00275-BSJ Document 25 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.318 Page 8 of 8 (10) For the time being, the Court will accept one document from Plaintiff--the required amended complaint--which may not be longer than ten pages. Any further filings not invited by the Court shall be returned to sender by the Clerk of Court. ..f h,,,- DATED this _jQ__ day of July, 2023. BY THE COURT: ~ 8
]]>
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.
