Pour et al v. Clegg et al

e
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
Justin Pour and Borbor Giahyue,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Robert Lawrence Clegg, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and
DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS AMENDED
COMPLAINTS
Case No. 2:24-cv-968 DBP
Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Pro se Plaintiffs Justin Pour and Borbor Giahyue each seek leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.1 The court previously granted each of the Plaintiffs’ motions temporarily and ordered
Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint. In that order the court noted the deficiencies in each of
Plaintiffs’ original complaints and ordered the parties to correct these deficiencies.2 Plaintiffs
have each filed their Amended Complaints.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
1. 	Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Under the in forma pauperis statute, the court shall, at any time, dismiss a case if it
determines that the action is: “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
1 ECF No. 2, ECF No. 3.
2 Order Temporarily Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Orders Plaintiffs to File Amended
Complaints, ECF No. 8.
Case 2:24-cv-00968-DBP Document 12 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 8

2
such relief.”3 The statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial
and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate
because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious
suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.”4 To help facilitate that objective, the in forma
pauperis statute provides the court with power to not only dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, “but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.”5
When determining whether to dismiss a case under §1915, the court employs the same
standard used to analyze motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.6
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 is incorporated into the court’s analysis.7
To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”8 The court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true
and views the allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, drawing all reasonable
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii).
4 Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1216 (10 th Cir. 2006) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct.
1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989)).
5 Id.
6 Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10 th Cir. 2007) (“We apply the same standard of review for dismissal under
§1914(e)(2)(B)(ii) that we employe for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
7 See United States ex rel. Lemmon v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 614 F.3d 1163, 1171 (10 th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 8(a)’s
mandate, that plaintiffs provide a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,’ has been incorporated into both the 9(b) and 12(b)(6) inquiries”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)).
8 Hogan v. Winder, 762 F.3d 1096, 1104 (10 th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547,
127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)).
Case 2:24-cv-00968-DBP Document 12 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 8

3
inferences in the Plaintiffs’ favor.9 A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted if it does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’”10 The Supreme Court has explained that “[a] claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”11 To properly state a claim for
relief in federal court, Plaintiff must craft a pleading that clearly states “what each defendant did
to [Plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed [Plaintiff]; and, what
specific legal right the [P]laintiff believes the defendant violated.”12
Additionally, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,”13
and further provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”14 “A pleading
that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s] devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement’”15 “Rule 8 serves the important purpose of requiring plaintiffs to state their
9 Wilson v. Montano, 715 F.3d 847, 852 (10 th Cir. 2013).
10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929) (2007)).
11 Id.
12 Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10 th Cir. 2007); see also Stone v. Albert, 338 F.
App’x 757, 759 (10 th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (emphasis in original) (quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242,
1250 (10 th Cir. 2008) (“To state a claim, a complaint must ‘make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to
whom.’”) (emphasis in original)).
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
15 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662 (quoting Twombly, 559 U.S. at 555, 557 ) (alteration in original).
Case 2:24-cv-00968-DBP Document 12 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 8

4
claims intelligibly so as to inform the defendants of the legal claims being asserted.”16 The
complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.”17
2. 	Pro Se Litigant
As a pro se litigants, the court construes Plaintiffs’ complaints liberally and holds
Plaintiffs’ pleadings to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.18 Yet
even under a liberal review, Plaintiffs are not excused from compliance with federal pleading
requirements or from stating a claim for which relief may be granted.19 For example, pro se
plaintiffs still have “the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim
could be based.”20 Further, it “is not the proper function of the Court to assume the role of
advocate for a pro se litigant,”21 and the court should not “supply additional facts, [or] construct
a legal theory . . . that assumes facts that have not been pleaded.”22
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaints Fail to Comply with the Minimum Pleading
Requirements of Rule 8 and Therefore They Fail to State a Claim Upon Which
Relief May Be Granted.
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a complaint is required to contain
“(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends . . . ;
16 Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007).
17 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
18 See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
19 Id. at 1009; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
20 Jenkins v. Currier, 514 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10 th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
21 Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
22 Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10 th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1059, 107 L. Ed. 2d. 954, 110 S. Ct.
871 (1990).
Case 2:24-cv-00968-DBP Document 12 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 8

5
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a
demand for the relief sought . . . .”23 “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s] devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’”24 “Rule 8 serves
the important purpose of requiring plaintiffs to state their claims intelligibly so as to inform the
defendants of the legal claims being asserted.”25 The complaint must “give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”26 The purpose of this rule is
to provide opposing parties with fair notice of the claims against them so that they may respond,
and it allows a court to conclude that the allegations, if proven, show a plaintiff is entitled to
relief.27
Pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with the minimal pleading requirements
of Rule 8. “This is so because a pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to recount the
facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to determine
whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.”28 Moreover, “it is not the proper
function of the Court to assume the role of advocate for a pro se litigant.”29 Thus, the court
23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
24 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662 (quoting Twombly, 559 U.S. at 555, 557) (alteration in original).
25 Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007).
26 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
27 See Monument Builders of Greater Kan. City Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Assn. of Kan., 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir.
1989) (citing Perrington Wholesale Inc. v. Burger King Corp., 631 F.2d 1369, 1371 (10th Cir. 1979); see also
Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1163 (holding a plain statement under Rule 8 provides defendant with “sufficient notice to
begin preparing its defense and the court sufficient clarity to adjudicate the merits”).
28 Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109.
29 Id. at 1110.
Case 2:24-cv-00968-DBP Document 12 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 8

6
cannot “supply additional facts, [or] construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that
have not been pleaded.”30
The court has liberally construed each of Plaintiffs’ respective Amended Complaints and
finds they fail to meet the requirements of Rule 8. Each of the Amended Complaints relate to the
prosecution of Plaintiffs for unlawful sexual conduct with a 17-year-old. Plaintiff Borbor
Giahyue was charged with counts of Rape, Gang Rape, Object Rape, and Forcible Sodomy.31
Plaintiff Justin Pour faced the same charges.32 Each of the Plaintiffs allege numerous violations
of their rights in connection with the charges and subsequent prosecution. Giahyue brings thirty-
six claims. They include inter alia claims for violations of religious right under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, false arrest, illegal searches and seizures, malicious prosecution, a host of conspiracies that
violated Giahyue’s rights, “ankle monitor/electronic prison”, denial and excessive bail,
destruction of evidence, and fabrication of DNA evidence. Pour brings the same claims. And
both Plaintiffs allege them under federal and state law.
The Supreme Court has held that the pleading standard under Rule 8 does not require
“detailed factual allegations,” but it does demand something more than an “unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”33 A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions”
or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”34 Neither is it
sufficient if a complaint tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.”35
30 Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
31 Amended Complaint at 11, ECF No. 10.
32 Amended Complaint at 9, ECF No. 9.
33 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
34 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
35 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-00968-DBP Document 12 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 8

7
The Amended Complaints here fail to meet the Rule 8 pleading standards as set forth by
the Supreme Court and thus must be dismissed under the IFP Statue. When a civil-rights
complaint contains “bare assertions,” with “nothing more than a ‘formulaic recitation of the
elements’ of a constitutional ... claim,” the court considers those assertions “conclusory and not
entitled to” an assumption of truth.36 In other words, “the mere metaphysical possibility that
some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the
complaint must give the court reason to believe this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of
mustering factual support for these claims.”37 Here, Plaintiffs’ Claims provide conclusory
statements that their rights were violated. Thus, they fail.
Further, based on the long running factual assertions in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaints,
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine appears applicable here. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides
that most federal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate claims seeking review of state court
judgments.38 The exception being the Supreme Court may hear such cases. The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine precludes cases brought by state court losers complaining of injuries caused via state
court judgments rendered before the federal district court proceedings commenced.39 A review of
a state court judgment must proceed to the state's highest court, and then be brought before the
United States Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257.40 A claim that is “inextricably
intertwined” with a state court judgment is also barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.41 Such
36 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554-55).
37 Ridge at Red Hawk LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007).
38 See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).
39 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).
40 See Facio v. Jones, 929 F.2d 541, 543 (10th Cir. 1991).
41 Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1147 (10th Cir. 2007). See also Wideman v. Colorado, 242 F. App'x 611, 614
(10th Cir. 2007) (finding appellant's claims barred by Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they were “little more than
Case 2:24-cv-00968-DBP Document 12 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 7
of 8

8
claims may be dismissed with prejudice as recently held by the Tenth Circuit.42 To the extent
that each of the Plaintiffs claims are an appeal from their state court judgments, those claims are
be dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
ORDER
Plaintiffs’ respective Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaints are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failing to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and for being frivolous under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.43
DATED this 1 December 2025.
_______________________________
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
United States District Court for the District of Utah
thinly disguised efforts to overturn, or at least call into question the validity of, the rulings entered against him” in
state court).
42 King v. Marquez, No. 25-1259, 2025 WL 2758045, at *2 (10th Cir. Sept. 29, 2025) (dismissing a plaintiff’s action
with prejudice as it violated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
43 See id.
Case 2:24-cv-00968-DBP Document 12 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 8
of 8