McDowell v. Azar
1:10-cv-02751
| D. Colo. | Dec 17, 2010Background
- McDowell, proceeding pro se, filed a civil action in the District of Colorado against Azar and Denver Police Sex Crimes Unit.
- Court must liberally construe pro se pleadings but will not act as advocate for plaintiff.
- Court finds the Complaint deficient under Rule 8 for lack of a short, plain statement of jurisdiction and claims.
- Rule 8 requires a short, plain statement of ground for jurisdiction, claim to relief, and relief sought, with simple, direct allegations.
- Court directs plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint stating, with specificity, what each defendant did, when, how harmed plaintiff, and what rights violated.
- Plaintiff given 30 days to amend; Clerk to mail two copies of a current court-approved complaint form; failure to amend may lead to dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the complaint satisfy Rule 8 pleading requirements? | McDowell argues the complaint states a claim against defendants. | Court holds the complaint fails to provide jurisdictional basis or specific factual allegations. | No; amendment required to plead jurisdiction and specific facts. |
| Should plaintiff be allowed to amend the complaint? | McDowell should be given opportunity to cure defects. | District court discretion to require a clarifying amendment rather than dismiss outright. | Yes; plaintiff must amend to comply with Rule 8. |
| What must amended complaint include to state a cognizable claim? | McDowell would provide factual details linking each defendant to harms. | Amendment must specify actions, timing, harm, and violated legal rights with specificity. | Amended complaint must specify each defendant's acts, timing, harm, and applicable legal rights. |
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 must provide fair notice of claims)
- TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062 (D. Colo. 1991) (Rule 8 requires clear, concise allegations)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (courts should liberally construe pro se pleadings)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (we should not act as advocate for pro se litigants; require pleadings to be clear and direct)
- Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (require specifics on what was done and how rights were violated)
- Atkins v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 967 F.2d 1197 (8th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 is within court's discretion)
- Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1969) (early authority on pleading standards)