Case Information
*1 Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, TACHA , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the parties’ briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Jerry-Lee Roth, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights suit against
numerous individuals and Colorado governmental entities. The defendants filed
multiple motions for dismissal or, in the alternative, summary judgment. The
district court dismissed Roth’s complaint, citing two independent bases:
(1) Roth’s complaint failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
[1]
; and (2) Roth’s
complaint failed to state a claim for relief that was plausible on its face.
[2]
Upon
de novo review,
Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C.
,
*3
In the apt words of the district court, Roth’s “[c]omplaint does not set forth
any facts which explain what each particular Defendant allegedly did to Plaintiff,
when each Defendant allegedly did it, how each Defendant’s actions harmed
Plaintiff, and what specific legal right Plaintiff believes each particular Defendant
violated.” Dist. Ct. Order at 3. Thus, it is absolutely clear Roth’s complaint fails
to contain “enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that he . . . is entitled
to relief.”
Robbins
,
For those reasons set out above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED . [3]
ENTERED FOR THE COURT Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
Notes
[*] This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
[1] Roth’s fourteen page complaint asserted thirty-one claims against twelve defendants. As noted by the magistrate judge in his report and recommendation, the complaint is virtually devoid of factual allegations. Instead, it contains nothing more than “legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Dist. Ct. Order at 3.
[2]
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly
,
[3] In light of this court’s conclusion that the district court correctly dismissed
Roth’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), we need not
address the propriety of such a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. We note,
however, that this court has specifically held that a dismissal with prejudice
premised on a plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8 must be accompanied by
an examination of the
Ehrenhaus
factors.
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E.
Agents
,