Gonzalez v. Nelson

CourtDistrict Court, D. Utah
DecidedNovember 3, 2020
Docket2:18-cv-00319
StatusUnknown

This text of Gonzalez v. Nelson (Gonzalez v. Nelson) 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
Gonzalez v. Nelson, (D. Utah 2020).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

TEODORO GONZALEZ, MEMORANDUM DECISION Plaintiff, & ORDER DISMISSING SOME DEFENDANTS & REQUIRING v. SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANT NELSON SGT. NELSON et al., Case No. 2:18-CV-319 TC

Defendants. District Judge Tena Campbell

Plaintiff, a Utah State Prison inmate, filed this pro se civil-rights suit, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2020).1 The Court grants his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 8.) Having now screened the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 7), under its statutory review function,2 the Court concludes that some defendants must be dismissed and official service of process is warranted for Defendant Nelson. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(d) (2020) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.”).

1 The federal civil-rights statute reads, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . ., 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 . . . . 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2020). 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 (2020). I. DISMISSAL OF SOME DEFENDANTS 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 each defendant’s personal participation is essential allegation). "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 may not name an individual as a defendant based solely on supervisory status. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating supervisory status alone is insufficient to support liability under § 1983). Nor does "denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff . . . establish personal participation under § 1983." Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009). Considering these guidelines, the Court concludes Plaintiff has done nothing to affirmatively link his claims to these defendants: Lt. Moore, Sgt. Cooms, Jeremy White,

“Grievance Personnel,” Steven Turley, Scott Crowther, “Deputy Warden,” “OMR Baker Block,” and “Contract Attorneys.” He has not tied any material facts to them. Claims against these defendants may not survive this omission; they are thus dismissed. II. SERVICE ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT NELSON The Court concludes that Plaintiff appears to have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted as to Defendant Nelson. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), the Court therefore requests waiver of service from Defendant Nelson. III. CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (ECF No. 8.) (2) For failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Defendants Moore, Cooms, White, “Grievance Personnel,” Turley, Crowther, “Deputy Warden,” “OMR Baker

Block,” and “Contract Attorneys” are DISMISSED. (ECF No. 7.) (3) The Clerk of Court shall mail: (a) Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, AO form 398; copy of Waiver of the Service of Summons, AO form 399; and copy of Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 7), and this Order to Defendant Nielson in care of: Utah Department of Corrections Att’n: Correctional Program Coordinator--3rd Floor DPO Suite 14717 South Minuteman Drive Draper, UT 84020.

(b) Copy of Amended 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, UT 84114-0856.

(4) Defendant is cautioned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires Defendant to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of serving summons and complaint. Under Rule 4, if Defendant fails to waive service of summons, after being asked by the Court to do so on Plaintiff’s behalf, Defendant must bear service costs unless good cause be shown for failing to sign and return 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 on which the waiver request was sent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). (This allows longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) Defendant must read the statement at the bottom of the waiver form 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. (5) If a waiver is not executed, attorneys for Defendant must file a notice listing the reasons a waiver has not been provided. This report is due 30 days from the date the Request was sent. (6) Defendant shall answer the complaint, observing the 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,

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.

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

Related

Stone v. Albert
338 F. App'x 757 (Tenth Circuit, 2009)
Gallagher v. Shelton
587 F.3d 1063 (Tenth Circuit, 2009)
Howard Smith Bennett v. Albert Passic, Sheriff, Etc.
545 F.2d 1260 (Tenth Circuit, 1976)
Martinez v. Aaron
570 F.2d 317 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
Mitchell v. Maynard
80 F.3d 1433 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)
Gee v. Estes
829 F.2d 1005 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gonzalez v. Nelson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-nelson-utd-2020.