Pola Ex Rel. WLP v. Utah, 458 F. App'x 760

Pola, representing himself, appeals a district court dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Pola filed a 145-page complaint with 151 exhibits, deemed incoherent and noncompliant with Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The district court conducted a de novo review and found the complaint insufficient and inconsistent with pleading standards.
Although pro se filings are liberally construed, the court did not supply missing facts or theories for Pola’s case.
The appellate brief was described as rambling and inadequate to preserve issues for review, failing to comply with Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Pola’s attacks on the district judge and inflammatory language led the circuit court to strike abusive material and deny his motions for injunctive relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper	Pola contends district court erred by not liberally interpreting his pro se complaint.	Defendant argues complaint failed to state a claim under Rules 8 and 12.	Yes; district court dismissal affirmed.
Whether pro se status requires the court to supply missing facts	Pola asserts liberal construction should fill gaps.	Court declines to supply missing facts or construct theory.	No; missing facts not supplied.
Whether Pola's appellate brief preserved issues for review	Pola argues issues were adequately raised in his brief.	Briefs were rambling and failed to comply with Rule 28.	No; issues not preserved.
Whether the district judge’s conduct is reviewable given allegations	Pola alleges misconduct by the district judge.	Abusive and baseless allegations justify disciplinary curbs.	Yes; court struck abusive language and rejected review of misconduct claims.
Whether Pola's motions for injunctive relief were properly denied	Pola sought injunctive relief from the panel but procedures were not followed.	Moves denied for noncompliance with appellate rules and procedures.	Yes; motions denied.

Coll v. First American Title Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 876 (10th Cir. 2011) (de novo review standard; liberal pleading does not replace rules)
Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2009) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings does not create new claims)
Hall v. Witteman, 584 F.3d 859 (10th Cir. 2009) (pro se filings must follow procedural rules)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (court may strike impertinent or scandalous matter and discipline proceedings)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 841 (10th Cir. 2005) (inherent authority to impose order; abusive pleading may be struck)