Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01898-BNB.
November 13, 2007
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a complaint. On September 24, 2007, he filed an amended complaint. In an order filed on September 28, 2007, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and two other documents.
The Court must construe the second amended complaint liberally because Plaintiff is representing himself. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Therefore, the second amended complaint is held to standards less stringent than those governing a formal pleading drafted by lawyers. See id. However, the Court should not be the pro se litigant's advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the action will be dismissed.
The Court has reviewed the second amended complaint and all of the other documents filed in this action and finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8. The twin purposes of a pleading 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) requires that a pleading "contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." The philosophy of Rule 8(a) is reinforced by Rule 8(e)(1) which provides that "[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (e)(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.
Plaintiff's second amended complaint does not include a short and plain statement of the grounds on which the Court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of Plaintiff's claims showing that he is entitled to relief, or even a clear demand for judgment for the relief he seeks. The numerous attachments to the second amended complaint are incomprehensible and do not assist the Court in determining what claims Plaintiff may be asserting in this action. In short, the second amended complaint, like the other documents filed in this action, makes no sense.
A decision to dismiss a pleading pursuant to Rule 8 is within the Court's sound discretion. See Atkins v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 967 F.2d 1197, 1203 (8th Cir. 1992); Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969). The burden Plaintiff places upon the Court to identify, interpret, and respond to his claims is unreasonable. Therefore, the action will be dismissed for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the complaint, the amended complaint, the second amended complaint, and the action are dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).