Fletcher v. City of Hildale, Utah et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
LESLIE FLETCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HILDALE, UTAH, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENT
COMPLAINT
Case No. 4:25-cv-00141-AMA-PK
District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen
Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler
This matter comes before the Court for screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and DUCivR 3-2. For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Plaintiff to
file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing his claims.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt construction work
taking place in Maxwell Canyon, located in Hildale, Utah. Plaintiff contends that Maxwell
Canyon is historically, culturally, and hydrologically significant and that Defendants “have
authorized, directed, or failed to prevent ground disturbance, trenching, grading, hydrological
modification, cultural sit destruction, and agricultural damage.”1 Plaintiff, a direct decedent of
the families who settled the area and adjacent land owner, brings claims under various
environmental protection statues, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), and the
Declaratory Judgment Act.
1 Docket No. 1 ¶ 1.
Case 4:25-cv-00141-AMA-PK Document 10 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 7

2
II. DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs all cases where a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a cause of action filed IFP at
any time the court determines the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or if the litigant seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such a claim. Although § 1915(e)(2)(B) screening is not required before granting IFP status
or ordering service on the defendant, the Tenth Circuit has encouraged district courts to screen
IFP cases as soon as practical.2
Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from the following deficiencies:
A. 	CLAIMS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
Plaintiff’s first two claims are brought under the National Historic Preservation Act
(“NHPA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). “Neither NEPA nor NHPA
provide a private right of action.”3 Instead, those claims are reviewed under the APA.4 Similarly,
Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (“ARPA”)
contains no private right of action.5 And Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action, though less than clear,
appears to assert a claim for violating the National Flood Insurance Act (“NFIA”) and National
2 See Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1160 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Though screening might
be a good practice and more efficient, we find that nothing in this language requires an assigned
magistrate judge to screen a case for merit or to make a recommendation for dismissal to the
district court before granting IFP status.”).
3 Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Env’t v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 831, 839 (10th Cir.
2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
4 Id.
5 Cheavens v. Pub. Serv. Corp. of Colo., 176 F. Supp. 3d 1088, 1094 (D. Colo. 2016); 16
U.S.C. § 470ee(d) (providing for criminal penalties); 16 U.S.C. § 470ff (permitting a “federal
land manager” to assess civil penalties).
Case 4:25-cv-00141-AMA-PK Document 10 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 7

3
Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”) and its supporting regulations, which do not provide a private
right of action.6 Because Plaintiff’s claims under these provisions do not provide for a private
right of action, they should be removed as independent causes of actions. Plaintiff remains free to
rely on these provisions to support a claim under the APA.
B. 	CLAIMS THAT ARE INADEQUATELY PLEADED
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must
contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (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.” As explained by the Tenth Circuit, compliance with Rule 8 requires that a
pleading set forth the court’s jurisdiction and identify “what each defendant did to him or her;
when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific
legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”7 Plaintiff must provide “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,”8 which requires “more than an unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”9 “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.’”10 These
requirements are designed to provide the opposing party with fair notice of the claims against it
6 United States v. St. Bernard Parish, 756 F.2d 1116, 1122–23 (5th Cir. 1985).
7 Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
8 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
9 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
10 Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557) (alteration in original).
Case 4:25-cv-00141-AMA-PK Document 10 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 7

4
and allow the Court to conclude that, if proven, the allegations show that Plaintiff is entitled to
relief.11
Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action asserts a claim under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The
CWA generally prohibits a person from adding any pollutant to the waters of the United States
from any point source without a permit.12 Plaintiff avers that Maxwell Creek constitutes a water
of the United States.13 However, this is a conclusory allegation unsupported by facts and is
therefore insufficient.14 Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that Plaintiff has complied with the
notice requirements necessary before bringing a citizen suit under the CWA.15 Plaintiff must
amend his Complaint to address these issues.
Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action alleges public nuisance. Under Utah law,
“Public nuisance” means unlawfully committing an act or omitting to perform a
duty, which act or duty:
(i) annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of three or
more persons, regardless of the extent to which the annoyance, injury, or
endangerment inflicted on the persons is unequal;
(ii) offends public decency;
(iii) unlawfully interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct, or renders dangerous
for passage, a lake, stream, canal, or basin, or a public park, square, street, or
highway;
(iv) is a nuisance as described in Section 78B-6-1107 . . . ; or
(v) renders three or more persons insecure in life or the use of property, regardless
of the extent to which the effect inflicted on the persons is unequal.16
11 See Monument Builders of Greater Kan. City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n of Kan., 891
F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989); see also Nasious, 492 F.3d 1163 (a plain statement under rule 8
provides a Defendant with “sufficient notice to begin preparing its defense and the court
sufficient clarity to adjudicate the merits”).
12 See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
13 Docket No. 1 ¶ 136.
14 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
15 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A); see also Karr v. Hefner, 475 F.3d 1192, 1200 (10th Cir.
2007) (concluding that compliance with the CWA’s notice requirement is jurisdictional).
16 Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-1301(3)(a).
Case 4:25-cv-00141-AMA-PK Document 10 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 7

5
The nature of Plaintiff’s public nuisance claims is unclear. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants have unreasonably interfered with cultural resources; hydrologic systems; canyon
stability; and aesthetic, environmental, and historical interests.17 But these alleged harms do not
appear within the definition of public nuisance, at least without further factual development.
Therefore, amendment is required for this claim.
C. 	CLAIMS AGAINST POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
In addition to federal agencies and the city of Hilldale, Plaintiff asserts claims against two
city departments, the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department. “The law of the
state in which the district court sits governs the capacity of a governmental entity to sue or to be
sued.”18 In Utah, municipalities—such as the city of Hildale—may sue or be sued,19 but there is
no statutory authority permitting lawsuits against municipal subdivisions such as the ones named
here. As a result, Plaintiff should remove any claims against the Hildale Utilities and Public
Works Departments.
D. 	DEFENDANTS NAMED IN CAPTION ONLY
In the caption of his Complaint, Plaintiff names certain state and federal officials in their
official capacities, but the body of his Complaint contains no substantive factual allegations
against them. Any amended complaint should clarify the allegations and claims as they relate to
these individual Defendants.
17 Docket No. 1 ¶ 151.
18 White v. Utah, 5 F. App’x 852, 853 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)).
19 Utah Code Ann. § 10-1-202.
Case 4:25-cv-00141-AMA-PK Document 10 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 7

6
E. 	CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT SEPARATE CAUSES OF ACTION
Finally, Plaintiff asserts separate causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“[T]he Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide an independent federal cause of action.”20
Similarly, a request for injunctive relief is a remedy, not an independent claim.21 Thus, while
Plaintiff may request declaratory and injunctive relief in his prayer for relief, as he has done,
there is no need for such requested relief to be included as stand-alone claims. As such,
Plaintiff’s amended complaint should remove these claims as independent causes of action,
recognizing that Plaintiff may continue to seek the same relief.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that by February 27, 2026, Plaintiff must cure the Complaint’s deficiencies
noted above by filing a single document entitled, “Amended Complaint,” that does not refer to or
include any other document. The Amended Complaint MAY NOT include claims outside or
beyond what was already contained in the complaint originally filed here. If an amended
complaint is filed, the Court will screen it for dismissal or an order effecting service upon valid
defendants. If Plaintiff fails to timely cure the above deficiencies according to this Order’s
instructions, this action may be dismissed without further notice. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Docket No.
2) is again temporarily GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the filing restrictions in the Court’s prior Order (Docket No. 9) remain in
place.
20 Nero v. Oklahoma, No. 22-6121, 2022 WL 14423872, at *2 (10th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022).
21 Romstad v. City of Colo. Springs, 650 F. App’x 576, 585 n.7 (10th Cir. 2016).
Case 4:25-cv-00141-AMA-PK Document 10 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 7

7
Signed February 4, 2026.
PAUL KOHLER
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00141-AMA-PK Document 10 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 7