Back to the record Copy link Copy citation Print page
This page was read by OCR. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Previous indexed page · 6 Page 7 Next indexed page · 8 Case 3:22-cv-00134-JAG-MRC Document 26 Filed 12/22/22 Page 7 of 12 PagelD# 136
Claim Eight: Defendant “Armstrong was deliberately indifferent when I asked him to
send my time credit to D.O.C.” and “Sheriff Gabe Morgan, Sr. is also
legally responsible due to the fact that his office participated in a series
of unconstitutional behavior.” (Jd. at 12-13.)
Melby seeks monetary damages. (/d. at 13.)
IV. DISMISSAL OF IMPROPERLY JOINED CLAIMS
The Court now proceeds with the analysis outlined in the August 4, 2022, Memorandum
Order. (ECF No. 21, at 3.) The first named defendant in the body of the Particularized Complaint
is Defendant Chandler. (ECF No. 23, at 1.) Defendant Chandler is named in Claim Five along
with Defendants Murray and Evans. Defendant Chandler is also named in Claim Six (b), but
Defendants Murray and Evans are not named in any other discernable claim for relief.5 Although
Defendant Chandler is named in Claim Six (b), that portion of Claim Six is not properly joined
with Claim Six (a) or (c) despite being included in the same paragraph. In Claim Six (a), Melby
contends that Defendant Walker “altered the integrity of my disciplinary hearing report.” (Id. at
12.) Next, in Claim Six (b), Melby argues that Defendant Chandler “responded to a grievance that
was about her actions which is a substantial conflict of interest.” (Jd.) Finally, in Claim Six (©),
Melby contends that Defendant Petitfere “lost or destroyed my inmate request forms that were
critical in me starting my initial grievance/and simply delated/obstructed my right to due process.”
(id.) Although Melby labels these three very different allegations as a violation of his right to due
process, they each allege different conduct, presumably on different dates, against different
5 The Court recognizes that Melby includes other vague references to Defendants Chandler,
Murray, and Evans in his rambling statement of his claims. At the end of Claim Seven, Melby
generally faults Defendants Walker, Hughes, Chandler, Murray, and Armstrong for discriminating
against him for “neglecting to find any solutions to any of my grievances” (ECF No. 23, at 12),
and at the end of Claim Eight, faults all of the Defendants “because they all played a specific role
in personally violating me.” (/d. at 13.) These allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a
claim for relief much less one that comports with joinder requirements.
Jump to an indexed page (12 of 12) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Report a privacy or text-extraction issue through publication requests .