GARY CLAYTON VIENS v. GABRIEL POWER

CourtDistrict Court, D. Utah
DecidedDecember 8, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-00930
StatusUnknown

This text of GARY CLAYTON VIENS v. GABRIEL POWER (GARY CLAYTON VIENS v. GABRIEL POWER) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
GARY CLAYTON VIENS v. GABRIEL POWER, (D. Utah 2025).

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

GARY CLAYTON VIENS, MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff, REQUESTING WAIVER OF SERVICE FROM DEFENDANT POWER v. Case No. 2:23-CV-930 DAK GABRIEL POWER, District Judge Dale A. Kimball Defendant.

Plaintiff, inmate Gary Clayton Viens, filed this pro se civil-rights action, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2025), proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 id. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 3-4.) Having now thoroughly screened and liberally construed1 the Amended Complaint (AC), (ECF Nos. 21), under its statutory review function,2 the Court requests waiver of service from sole defendant,

1Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, "applying a less stringent standard than is applicable to pleadings filed by lawyers. Th[e] court, however, will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf." Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). This means that if this Court can reasonably read the pleadings "to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Still, it is not "the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant." Id.; see also Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140, 1143 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). 2The 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 (2025). Gabriel Power. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(d) (2025) ("The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases."). Based on screening of the Amended Complaint, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Court requests waiver of service from Defendant Gabriel Power.

2. As to this single defendant, the Clerk of Court shall mail: a. Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, AO form 398; 2 copies of Waiver of the Service of Summons, AO form 399; and copy of the Amended Complaint, (ECF Nos. 21), and this Order to: Utah Department of Corrections, Att'n: Correctional Program Coordinator--3rd Floor DPO Suite, 14717 South Minuteman Drive, Draper, Utah 84020. b. Copies of Complaint and this Order to Utah Attorney General's Office, Att'n: Litigation Division, Prisoner Litigation Unit, 160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor, P.O. Box 140856, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856.

3. Defendant is cautioned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires Defendant to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of summons and complaint. Under Rule 4, if Defendant does not waive summons service, after being asked by the Court to do so on Plaintiff's behalf, Defendant must bear service costs unless good cause be shown for not signing and returning the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendant had been served on the day the waiver is filed, except that Defendant need not file an answer until 60 days from the date when the waiver request was sent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). (This allows more days to respond than would be required if formal summons service is necessary.) Defendant must read the statement at the waiver form's end that more completely describes the party's duties about waiver. If service is waived after the deadline given in the Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons but before Defendant has been personally served, the Answer shall be due 60 days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or 20 days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 4. If Defendant does not execute a waiver, Defendant's counsel must file notice giving

reasons a waiver has not been filed. A report is due 30 days from the date a request was sent. 5. Defendant shall answer the Amended Complaint, observing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the following litigation schedule: a. If Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies in a grievance process, Defendant must, i. within 60 days of date of waiver request, file an answer; ii. within 90 days of filing an answer, prepare and file a Martinez report3 limited to the exhaustion issue; and, iii. within 120 days of filing an answer, file a separate summary-

judgment motion as to exhaustion only (with supporting memorandum).

3 See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (approving district court's practice of ordering prison administration to prepare report to be included in pleadings in cases when prisoner has filed suit alleging constitutional violation against institution officials). In Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005 (10th Cir. 1987), the Tenth Circuit explained the nature and function of a Martinez report, saying: Under the Martinez procedure, the district judge or a United States magistrate [judge] to whom the matter has been referred will direct prison officials to respond in writing to the various allegations, supporting their response by affidavits and copies of internal disciplinary rules and reports. The purpose of the Martinez report is to ascertain whether there is a factual as well as a legal basis for the prisoner's claims. This, of course, will allow the court to dig beneath the conclusional allegations. These reports have proved useful to determine whether the case is so devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal without trial. Id. at 1007. b. If Defendant challenges the complaint's bare allegations, Defendant shall, within 60 days of date of waiver request, file a motion to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). c. If Defendant chooses not to rely on an exhaustion defense and wants to pierce the complaint's allegations, Defendant must,

i. within 60 days of date of waiver request, file an answer; ii. within 90 days of filing an answer, prepare and file a Martinez report addressing the complaint's substance; and, iii. within 120 days of filing an answer, file a separate summary judgment motion, with supporting memorandum. d.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Martinez v. Aaron
570 F.2d 317 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
Gee v. Estes
829 F.2d 1005 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)
Hall v. Bellmon
935 F.2d 1106 (Tenth Circuit, 1991)
Dunn v. White
880 F.2d 1188 (Tenth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
GARY CLAYTON VIENS v. GABRIEL POWER, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-clayton-viens-v-gabriel-power-utd-2025.