Brooker v. Gould
1:12-cv-01608
| D. Colo. | Oct 25, 2012Background
- Plaintiffs Carey Wayne Brooker and Lenora Renee Brooker filed a pro se 27-page complaint in the District of Colorado, 12–cv–01608–REB–KMT.
- Court found the complaint deficient for not using the court-approved form and failing to meet Rule 8 pleading standards.
- Plaintiffs were directed to amend by October 1, 2012, and were advised that dismissal with prejudice could be a potential sanction for noncompliance.
- Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint; the Court commented that the pleading was verbose, unintelligible, and not a short plain statement of claims.
- The court applied Ehrenhaus factors to assess dismissal with prejudice and potential sanctions for noncompliance with orders, rules, and local practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted. | Brooker (plaintiffs) argue for relief despite noncompliance. | Defendants contend dismissal is appropriate due to persistent noncompliance. | Dismissal with prejudice is warranted. |
| Whether sanctions beyond dismissal are appropriate. | Brooker seeks limited or no additional sanctions beyond dismissal. | Defendants request costs and attorney fees as sanctions. | Additional sanctions including costs and attorney fees are recommended. |
| Whether Ehrenhaus factors support the court’s chosen sanction. | Brooker argues the court should not severely sanction without merit. | Defendants rely on Ehrenhaus factors showing prejudice, interference, culpability, and lack of effective lesser sanctions. | Five factors favor dismissal with prejudice and sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473 (10th Cir. 1989) (pleading standards and notice considerations under Rule 8)
- TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062 (D. Colo. 1991) (requirements of Rule 8 and clarity of pleadings)
- Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (non-exhaustive factors for dismissing with prejudice)
- Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2002) (district court discretion to sanction for noncompliance)
- Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chems. Indus., 167 F.R.D. 90 (D. Colo. 1996) (application of Ehrenhaus factors in sanction)