Gary Eatchel v. Jennifer Stansfield, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah screened Gary Eatchel’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and identified deficiencies concerning personal participation, equal protection, due process, retaliation, failure to protect, grievances, and access to legal assistance. The court ordered him to file an amended complaint within ninety days and denied his motion for appointed counsel without prejudice. The court warned that failure to cure the deficiencies could result in dismissal without further notice.

Holdings

1. The complaint was deficient because it did not affirmatively link specific alleged civil-rights violations to specific defendants or identify what each defendant personally did.
2. Alleged violations of prison policy, state statutes or codes, promises, or ethics rules do not, without more, establish a violation of the federal Constitution.
3. The complaint was deficient because it did not link the elements of the asserted equal protection, due process, retaliation, and failure-to-protect theories to specific named defendants and supporting facts.
4. A prisoner has no independent constitutional right to a state administrative grievance procedure, and denial or mishandling of a grievance alone does not establish personal participation in an underlying constitutional violation.
5. The motion for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice because Plaintiff’s claims were not then shown to be colorable, the issues were not complex, and Plaintiff appeared capable of litigating the matter.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint satisfied the pleading and personal-participation requirements applicable to a prisoner’s § 1983 action.
2. Whether the complaint adequately stated potential equal protection, due process, retaliation, and failure-to-protect claims.
3. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to appointed counsel in the civil action.

Disposition

other