Soto v. State of Utah, 2:12-cv-00668

Soto, a pro se prisoner, filed a civil rights suit in the District of Utah and the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, finding multiple deficiencies.
The court identified deficiencies including theories of liability against a warden under respondeat superior and a lack of affirmative link to Sorensen.
CUCF was improperly named as a defendant because it is not a separate legal entity capable of suit.
The State of Utah was improperly named as a defendant due to Eleventh Amendment immunity and lack of waiver or valid congressional abrogation.
The court instructed Soto to file an amended complaint that stands on its own, clarifies each defendant’s specific acts, and complies with Rule 8, or the case will be dismissed; the court also noted the Eleventh Amendment issue would preclude claims against the State.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Liability of warden under respondeat superior	Soto asserts the warden is liable for civil rights violations	Warden cannot be liable on a respondeat-superior theory	Deficiencies noted; no merits ruling on liability yet
Affirmative link between Sorensen and alleged rights violations	Soto argues Sorensen directly violated rights	No affirmative link shown between Sorensen and the violations	Deficiencies noted; need explicit factual linkage in amended complaint
CUCF as a proper defendant	Soto names CUCF as a defendant	CUCF is not an independent legal entity capable of suing or being sued	CUCF improperly named; must be removed or corrected in amended complaint
Eleventh Amendment immunity and State as a defendant	Soto seeks claims against the State	State immunity bars claims absent waiver or abrogation	Claims against the State appear precluded by Eleventh Amendment immunity; Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims
Rule 8 pleading requirements and standalone amended complaint	Soto must provide a complete, standalone complaint	Not explicitly argued by any party in the order, but required by Rule 8	Amendment required to stand on its own; failure to cure will result in dismissal

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleading standards; fair notice and minimal pleading requirements)
Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609 (10th Cir. 1998) (amended complaint supersedes original; pleading standards)
Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1976) (personal participation is essential in § 1983 claims)
Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433 (10th Cir. 1996) (supervisory liability requires more than supervisor status)