Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02255-BNB
09-04-2012
HAROLD HICKS, III, Plaintiff, v. STERLING GEESAMAN, and NANCY KROLL, Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Harold Hicks, III, is an inmate at the Weld County Jail in Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Hicks initiated this action by filing pro se in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California a civil rights complaint. On August 29, 2012, Mr. Hicks filed an amended pleading using the court-approved Prisoner Complaint form (ECF No. 8). The court must construe the Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Hicks is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Hicks will be ordered to file a second amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
The court has reviewed the Prisoner Complaint and finds that the Prisoner Complaint is deficient. First, Mr. Hicks fails to provide an address for Defendant Nancy Kroll. Mr. Hicks is advised that he must provide an address for each Defendant so that each Defendant can be properly served.
The Court also finds that the Prisoner Complaint is deficient because the Prisoner Complaint does not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The twin purposes of a complaint are to give the opposing parties fair notice of the basis for the claims against them so that they may respond and to allow the court to conclude that the allegations, if proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass'n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989). The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 are designed to meet these purposes. See TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991), aff'd, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992). Specifically, Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint "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." The philosophy of Rule 8(a) is reinforced by Rule 8(d)(1), which provides that "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules. Prolix, vague, or unintelligible pleadings violate the requirements of Rule 8.
Mr. Hicks fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief. In particular, it is not clear how many claims Mr. Hicks is asserting in the Prisoner Complaint. Although Mr. Hicks lists three claims for relief, he fails to allege facts that would support three separate and distinct claims for relief. Therefore, Mr. Hicks will be ordered to file a second amended complaint that clarifies the claims he is asserting and the specific facts that support each claim. In order to state a claim in federal court, Mr. Hicks "must explain 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." Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). The general rule that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally has limits and "the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant's attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record." Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Hicks file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, a second amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 as discussed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hicks shall obtain the court-approved Prisoner Complaint form (with the assistance of his case manager or the facility's legal assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Hicks fails within the time allowed to file a second amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED September 4, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge