Whittiker v. Block by Block
1:14-cv-02913
| D. Colo. | Oct 28, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Charles Whittiker, proceeding pro se, filed a Title VII complaint alleging sexual harassment and retaliation arising from his employment with Block by Block.
- The court must construe pro se filings liberally but will not act as the litigant’s attorney to construct claims or search the record.
- The complaint was filed on a court-provided Title VII form but contained only conclusory assertions without specific factual allegations describing the alleged harassment or retaliation.
- The complaint did not state the relief sought and failed to satisfy the short-and-plain-statement and simplicity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 8(d)(1).
- The court found the pleading deficient under Rule 8 and ordered Whittiker to file an amended complaint on the court-approved Title VII form within 30 days, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Title VII complaint meets Rule 8 pleading standards | Whittiker alleges demotion/discharge due to sexual harassment and retaliation (conclusory) | Block by Block implicitly argues the complaint lacks factual specificity to respond (defense not detailed in order) | Complaint fails Rule 8; conclusory allegations insufficient; must plead specific facts |
| Whether pro se status relieves plaintiff of pleading requirements | Pro se status—implicitly expects liberal construction of pleadings | Court: pro se status does not permit the court to construct claims for plaintiff | Pro se pleadings construed liberally but plaintiff must identify specific claims and facts |
| What remedy the court should impose for deficient pleading | N/A (plaintiff sought to proceed) | N/A | Court orders plaintiff to file an amended complaint on court form within 30 days or face dismissal |
| Required content for amended complaint | N/A (court-directed requirements) | N/A | Amended complaint must: identify each claim, state facts showing who did what when, how he was harmed, and the relief sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (court should not act as advocate for pro se litigant)
- Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473 (10th Cir. 1989) (purposes of a complaint are fair notice and showing entitlement to relief)
- TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062 (D. Colo. 1991) (describing Rule 8 pleading purposes)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (court cannot construct arguments or search the record for a pro se litigant)
- Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (to state a claim a complaint must explain who did what, when, how it harmed the plaintiff, and what right was violated)