Jones v. Herbert, 2:15-cv-00041

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Jones, a pro se inmate, filed a § 1983 civil-rights complaint proceeding in forma pauperis in the District of Utah.
The Court screened the complaint and found multiple pleading deficiencies requiring amendment.
Deficiencies included: potential challenge to the validity of Jones's conviction (proper for habeas, not § 1983), lack of factual allegations linking individual defendants to violations, impermissible respondeat-superior claims, and attempts to sue a judge for prior habeas rulings.
The complaint also attempted to assert state constitutional claims and alleged criminal conduct by defendants, which the Court said are not properly remedied in federal civil-rights litigation.
The Court warned that some claims appear barred by Heck v. Humphrey because they would necessarily imply invalidity of Jones’s conviction unless that conviction has first been invalidated.
The Court ordered Jones to file an amended complaint curing the defects within 30 days, mailed him pro se forms, and warned that failure to cure would result in dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper vehicle for challenge to conviction/sentence	Jones asserts constitutional violations tied to his conviction/imprisonment	Defendants implicitly rely on the distinction between § 1983 and habeas	Court: Claims that would invalidate conviction/sentence are Heck-barred in § 1983 and belong in habeas unless conviction has been invalidated
Pleading sufficiency / factual links to defendants	Jones named officials and alleged violations generally	Court requires specific factual allegations showing each defendant's personal participation	Court: Complaint deficient — must plead who did what to violate rights
Supervisory liability / respondeat-superior	Jones included supervisors as defendants	Supervisory status alone is not a basis for § 1983 liability	Court: Dismiss supervisory allegations unless plaintiff pleads personal participation
State-law / criminal allegations in federal § 1983 suit	Jones sought relief for state constitutional violations and alleged crimes by defendants	Federal civil-rights forum is inappropriate for purely state-law claims or criminal prosecutions	Court: State claims not properly before court absent pendent jurisdiction; criminal conduct allegations not remedied via § 1983

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se litigants must meet minimal pleading standards and cannot expect court to act as advocate)
Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188 (10th Cir. 1989) (court should not construct legal theories or supply facts for pro se plaintiffs)
Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609 (10th Cir. 1998) (amended complaint supersedes original complaint)
Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1976) (personal participation of each defendant is essential in § 1983 actions)
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (complaint must make clear exactly who did what to whom)
Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433 (10th Cir. 1996) (supervisory status alone does not establish § 1983 liability)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 action challenging conviction or sentence is barred unless conviction has been invalidated)
Butler v. Compton, 482 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2007) (Heck prevents use of § 1983 to circumvent habeas exhaustion requirements)
TV Commc'ns Network, Inc. v. ESPN, 767 F. Supp. 1062 (D. Colo. 1991) (Rule 8 requires short, plain statement giving defendants fair notice of claims)