Haoyu Wang v. Matthew Dumont et al.

Wang v. Dumont, No. 2:26-CV-141-HCN (D. Utah May 15, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Utah · May 15, 2026 · No. 2:26-CV-141-HCN

Summary

This is a memorandum decision and order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah directing pro se plaintiff Haoyu Wang to cure deficiencies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court discusses pleading, personal participation, medical care, retaliation, access to courts, municipal liability, mail interference, appointed counsel, and preliminary injunctive relief, denying the motions for counsel and injunctive relief without prejudice.

Holdings

  1. The complaint was deficient because it did not adequately plead personal participation, the elements of several asserted constitutional claims, the distinction between individual- and official-capacity liability, or the requirements for municipal liability and other asserted theories.
  2. Plaintiff was given ninety days to file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies; the amended complaint had to stand on its own and could not incorporate the original complaint.
  3. The motion for appointed counsel was denied because Plaintiff had not shown that his claims had sufficient merit or that the factual and legal circumstances warranted a request for pro bono representation.
  4. The motion for service of process was denied because no valid complaint was on file; the court would order service if Plaintiff filed an amended complaint stating a claim for relief.
  5. The motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was denied because Plaintiff failed to address or establish the required preliminary-injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint stated cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and satisfied federal pleading requirements.
  2. Whether Plaintiff should be allowed to amend the deficient complaint before dismissal.
  3. Whether the court should request pro bono counsel for Plaintiff.
  4. Whether the court should authorize service of process when no valid complaint was then on file.
  5. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (28)

  • Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Boyd v. Werholtz, 443 F. App'x 331, 332 (10th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-56 (1996)(followed)
  • Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977)(followed)
  • Sweeten v. Sneddon, 463 F.2d 713, 715 (10th Cir. 1972)(followed)
  • TV Commc'ns Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991)(followed)
  • Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 28.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…