Opinion
20-CIV-066-RAW
09-29-2021
SHANE WEBSTER UPCHURCH, Plaintiff, v. WASTEQUIP LLC and TRAVELERS INDEMNITY AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER
HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court are Plaintiff's “Federal Questions, Private Right to Relief from Retaliation under Title VII [Doc. 30], Motion of Aggrieved Person by Such Failure [Doc. 31], and Violation of Conscience [Doc. 34] which “motions” appear to be more a recitation of beliefs and recounting of irrelevant events rather than a “simple, concise and direct” pleading seeking some discernible relief. Rule 8(d)(1) Fed.R.Civ.P. Rather than citing arguments of substance, Plaintiff relies on “mere conclusory allegations with no…legal authority for support.” See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005).
In the Violation of Conscience filing, the Plaintiff resorts to summarizing an encounter with a workman's compensation judge using derogatory and abusive language towards the court. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (f), a “court may strike from a pleading…any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Although a pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, pro se parties must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005). “[I]f the complaint or other pleadings are abusive or contain offensive language, they may be stricken sua sponte under the inherent powers of the court.” Id., at 838, (citing Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir. 1981).
The court finds that Plaintiffs filings [Doc. Nos. 30, 31, and 34] are comprised of redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous material and are hereby stricken.
IT IS ORDERED.