Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00365-BNB
02-27-2012
CHRISTINE M. VINCENT, Plaintiff, v. VAIL HONEYWAGON, Defendant.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Christine M. Vincent, has filed pro se a Title VII Complaint. The Court must construe the Title VII Complaint liberally because Ms. Vincent is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Ms. Vincent will be ordered to file an amended complaint if she wishes to pursue her claims in this action.
The Court has reviewed the Title VII Complaint and finds that 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.
Ms. Vincent fails to provide a short and plain statement of her claims showing that she is entitled to relief. Ms. Vincent has checked boxes on the Court's preprinted Title VII Complaint form indicating that Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of sex by their failure to promote her and subjecting her to a hostile work environment. However, the Court's preprinted Title VII Complaint form otherwise is largely blank and Ms. Vincent provides no claims or factual allegations in support of any claims of employment discrimination. Although Ms. Vincent attaches to the Title VII Complaint a copy of a Dismissal and Notice of Rights issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that document does not provide the Court with the factual basis for any of the claims Ms. Vincent intends to assert in this action. Nor do the numerous documents she also attaches to the complaint.
Neither the Court nor Defendants is required to guess in order to determine the specific claims or the specific factual allegations that support the claims Ms. Vincent intends to assert. The general rule that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally has limits and "the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant's attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record." Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Ms. Vincent will be ordered to file an amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 if she wishes to pursue her claims in this action. Ms. Vincent must present her claims clearly and concisely in a manageable format that allows the Court and Defendants to know what claims are being asserted and to be able to respond to those claims. The Court will not extrapolate from any attachments to the amended complaint what Ms. Vincent's claims appear to be.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Christine M. Vincent, file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, an amended Title VII complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 as discussed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Vincent shall obtain the Court-approved Title VII Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Ms. Vincent fails to file an amended Title VII Complaint as directed, the Title VII Complaint and the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED February 27, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge