Opinion
Civil Action No. 09-cv-01371-BNB.
June 16, 2009
ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, John F. Noble, has filed a pro se Title VII Complaint. The Court must construe liberally Mr. Noble's Complaint because he is a pro se litigant. Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For the reasons stated below, Mr. Noble will be ordered to file an Amended Complaint.
On Page Two of the Title VII Complaint form, Mr. Noble failed to respond to Question Eight. He, therefore, has failed to allege or to demonstrate that he has met the statutory prerequisites to maintain an employment discrimination lawsuit in federal court. He does not state whether he has received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC and, if he did, what date he received the letter. The Court will direct Mr. Noble to amend the Complaint and answer Question Eight on Page Two of the Complaint form. He is further directed to attach to the Complaint a copy of the right-to-sue letter that he received from the EEOC.
The Complaint also is deficient because it 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. Noble has failed to use the Court-approved form to state his claims. He has attached to the form fifteen pages of a single-spaced narrative regarding employment practices that took place while he was employed at the Denver International Airport. Mr. Noble's claims are repetitive and prolix. Therefore, the Court finds that the Title VII Complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8. Mr. Noble is instructed to file an Amended Complaint that sets forth his claims on the Court-approved form in a simple and concise manner.
Mr. Noble also is advised that to state a claim in federal court his Amended Complaint must explain what a defendant did to him, when the defendant did it, how Defendant's action harmed him, and what specific legal right the defendant violated. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents , 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date of this Order, Mr. Noble file an Amended Complaint that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail to Mr. Noble, together with a copy of this Order, two copies of the Court-approved Title VII Complaint form. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Noble fails within the time allowed to file an Amended Complaint that complies with this Order the action will be dismissed without further notice.