Schaal v. Hess

Full title: DANIEL L. SCHAAL, Plaintiff, v. JASON HESS, DEPUTY GOMEZ, DEPUTIES LITTAU…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Dec 5, 2007

Civil Action No. 07-cv-01935-BNB (D. Colo. Dec. 5, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-cv-01935-BNB.

December 5, 2007

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

ZITA WEINSHIENK, Senior District Judge

Plaintiff Daniel L. Schaal was incarcerated at the El Paso County Detention Facility in Colorado Springs, Colorado, when he initiated this action. On November 28, 2007, Mr. Schaal filed a notice stating that he has been transferred into the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections.

Mr. Schaal initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his rights under the United States Constitution have been violated. On October 1, 2007, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ordered Mr. Schaal to file an amended complaint that clarifies who he is suing. On October 16, 2007, Mr. Schaal filed an amended complaint. On October 25, 2007, Magistrate Judge Boland ordered Mr. Schaal to file a second amended complaint because the amended complaint failed to comply with the Court's local rules as well as the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 31, 2007, Mr. Schaal filed a second amended complaint.

The Court must construe the second amended complaint liberally because Mr. Schaal is representing himself. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10^th 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.

The Court has reviewed the second amended complaint filed in this action. The second amended complaint is identical to the amended complaint filed on October 16. As such, the second amended complaint does not correct any of the deficiencies identified by Magistrate Judge Boland in his October 25 order. The Court agrees that the amended complaint and the second amended complaint violate the Court's local rules and do not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 as discussed by Magistrate Judge Boland in his October 25 order. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the complaint, the amended complaint, the second amended complaint, and the action are dismissed without prejudice.