Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-00247-WJM-NRN
12-11-2020
C. S. ROBLEDO-VALDEZ, Plaintiff, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CDOC DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 8 (DKT. #48)
N. REID NEUREITER, United States Magistrate Judge
This prisoner civil rights case is before me pursuant to an Order (Dkt. #49) issued by Judge William J. Martinez referring Defendants Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), Robert Dick, Jeff Long, Jeff Peterson, Eva Little; Ray Higgins; Stephanie Stephenson, Charles Kirschbaum, Hollie Kennedy, Benjamin McLaughlin, Brian Wingert, Nathan Wagner, Steve Frank, Josh Swenes, Randy Smithgall, Raymond Cole, Sean Curry, Dan Katzenberg, Ray Bilderaya, and Rebecca Oakes' (collectively, “CDOC Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Dkt. #48. Plaintiff Craig S. Robledo-Valdez, who proceeds pro se, filed a response. Dkt. #53. The CDOC Defendants filed a reply. Dkt. #55. I heard argument from the parties on September 16, 2020. See Dkt. #61. I have taken judicial notice of the Court's file, considered the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law, and RECOMMEND that the motion be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is currently in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”) and incarcerated at the Sterling Correctional Facility (“SCF”). He initiated this lawsuit pro se in the District Court of Logan County, Colorado on December 23, 2019. See generally Dkt. #6. Plaintiff's 44-page handwritten complaint named 22 defendants, asserted 11 causes of action, and contained 17 requests for relief.
The Court must construe the filings of a pro se litigant liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). The Court, however, should not be the pro se litigant's advocate, nor should the Court “supply additional factual allegations to round out [the pro se litigant's] complaint or construct a legal theory on [his or her] behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110). In addition, pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994).
Defendant Brittny Lewton timely removed the action to this District on January 29, 2020. Dkt. #1. On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint. Dkt. #31. During the May 6, 2020 Status Conference, I granted Plaintiff's motion to amend based, in part, on Plaintiff's representation that the amended complaint would be removing certain claims that would not survive a dispositive motion. I acknowledged Defendants' counsels' concerns about the length of the complaint and nature of the claims, and I urged Plaintiff to streamline his allegations.
Plaintiff's claim against Ms. Lewton has since been dismissed with prejudice. See Dkt. #62.
Defendants' misgivings were borne out. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (Dkt. #45) on July 22, 2020, five days after the deadline I set at the Status Conference. In addition to ignoring my deadline, Plaintiff disregarded my suggestion that he simplify his claims. The Amended Complaint is over 70 single-spaced, handwritten pages. It asserts 12 claims for relief against over 60 defendants. It encompasses events spanning from 2014 to June 2020. The requested relief includes monetary damages and sweeping declarative and injunctive relief.
In response, Defendants filed the subject motion. Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 8 and dismissal without prejudice is warranted.
DISCUSSION
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 Rule 8 are designed to meet these purposes. See TV Commc'ns Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F.Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991), aff'd, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992). 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. See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007) (Rule 8's requirements are designed to force plaintiffs “to state their claims intelligibly so as to inform the defendants of the legal claims being asserted.”).
Prolixity of a complaint undermines the utility of the complaint. See Knox v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, 196 F.2d 112, 117 (10th Cir. 1952) (“The purpose of [Rule 8(a)] is to eliminate prolixity in pleading and to achieve brevity, simplicity, and clarity.”). Thus, the Tenth Circuit has held that a complaint can run afoul of Rule 8 through unnecessary length and burying of material allegations in “‘a morass of irrelevancies.'” Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148 (quoting Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003)).
Instead, claims must be presented clearly and concisely in a manageable format that allows a court and a defendant to know what claims are being asserted and to be able to respond to those claims. New Home Appliance Ctr., Inc., v. Thompson, 250 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1957). For the purposes of Rule 8(a), “[i]t is sufficient, and indeed all that is permissible, if the complaint concisely states facts upon which relief can be granted upon any legally sustainable basis.” Id.
Even construed liberally, Plaintiff's allegations do not meet do not meet this standard. Plaintiff himself seems to acknowledge this. He prefaces his Amended Complaint by “estimat[ing] 10 defendants will be dismissed or granted summary judgment in due course, ” and that “4 of his 12 claims may end up failing.” Dkt. #46 at 1.In this manner, he appears to be trying to justify the length and breadth of his pleading by explaining that he knows a number of the defendants should not have been sued and a number of the claims are destined for failure. This is plainly improper.
All page numbers cited herein reference the CM-ECF page stamp at the top right corner of the page.
Defendants also claim that the Amended Complaint does not state whom Plaintiff is suing and why, pointing particularly to Claims Five through Twelve. Plaintiff justifies this admitted deficiency by pointing to the fact that CDOC staff have “common last names” and “blame various actions of each other, ” and when “assigned to investigate and respond to a prisoner's grievance become culpable when they lie; commit perjury; [and] discover the prisoner is correct and worth [sic] of relief but still deny the grievance.” Dkt. #53 at 1. Thus, he says that he “added all DOC personnel responsible for aiding, abetting, or facilitating constitutional rights violations or torts against him.”
This argument is rejected. To state a claim in federal court Plaintiff must explain (1) what a defendant did to him; (2) when the defendant did it; (3) how the defendant's action harmed him; and (4) what specific legal right the defendant violated. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that, to state a claim in federal court, “a complaint 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”). He cannot simply name every CODC staff member he can think of and attempt rope them into a lawsuit by claiming a vast conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.
Moreover, I note that many of the claims Plaintiff asserts here have been brought (and some dismissed) against the same defendants in other court cases. See Robledo-Valdez v. Dick et al., 16-cv-00192-DDD-KLM (D. Colo.); Robledo-Valdez v. Alloy et al., Fremont County District Court Case No. 2019CV212 (see Dkt. #58-1); Robledo-Valdez c. Raemisch et al., El Paso County District Court Case No. 2018CV260 (see Dkt. #58-2). Principles of comity, abstention, and estoppel prohibit Plaintiff from seeking identical relief in multiple venues.
The Court takes judicial notice of the complaints filed in these cases. See Pace v. Swerdlow, 519 F.3d 1067, 1072-73 (10th Cir. 2008).
I do not foreclose the possibility that “[b]uried in the amended complaint are allegations that might alert particular defendants to allegations of wrongdoing. But other allegations appear to lump all of the defendants together, without saying who did what or identifying conduct that would trigger liability.” Baker v. City of Loveland, 686 Fed.Appx. 619, 621 (10th Cir. 2017). Similarly, some claims brought in this action may not overlap with those asserted in Plaintiff's other lawsuits. But, like the instant pleading, Plaintiff's complaints in those suits consist of long, bewildering narratives and multiple defendants and claims for relief. Neither I nor the CDOC Defendants are required to assume the burden of sifting through Plaintiff's “morass” of irrelevant and redundant factual allegations and legal arguments in order to generate a viable pleading that complies with Rule 8. See id. at 621-22. I decline any invitation to do so.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the CDOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (Dkt. #48) be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #46) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
NOTICE: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), the parties have fourteen (14) days after service of this recommendation to serve nd file specific written objections to the above recommendation with the District Judge assigned to the case. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. The District Judge need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party's failure to file and serve such written, specific objections waives de novo review of the recommendation by the District Judge, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-53 (1985), and also waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. Makin v. Colo. Dep't of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 1999); Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir. 1996).