Washington v. Colorado State University, et al

Filing 920101215

Opinion

U n i t e d States Court of Appeals T e n t h Circuit

FILED

D e c e m b e r 15, 2010
U N I T E D STATES COURT OF APPEALSl i s a b e t h A. Shumaker E T E N T H CIRCUIT
C l e r k of Court

L E S T E R L. WASHINGTON, P l a i n t i f f - Appellant, v. C O L O R A D O STATE UNIVERSITY; C O L O R A D O STATE UNIVERSITY B O A R D OF GOVERNORS; LARRY P E N L E Y ; ANTHONY FRANK; C S U F C OFFICE OF EQUAL O P P O R T U N I T Y AND DIVERSITY; D A N A HIATT; ROSELYN CUTLER; H U M A N RESOURCES D E P A R T M E N T ; CAROL SHIREY; M I N D Y NICHOLS; BLANCHE H U G H E S ; JENNIFER MOLOCK; B L A C K STUDENT SERVICES; M I K I K O KUMASAKA; JIM DOLAK; G L E N WELLS; JIM LATEGAN; K A R E N BALL, ; KATE SLY; JAMES L Y A L L ; CSUFC COLLEGE OF A P P L I E D HUMAN SCIENCES; A P R I L C. MASON; SAMANTHA B E A L ; LEXIE VAN BUSKIRK; C S U F C GRADUATE SCHOOL R E G I S T R A R S OFFICE; MARY M E N C I N ; CINDY BEFUS; VICKI D I E H L ; CSUFC LEGAL; ROBERT B O M G R E B E ; AMY PARSONS; C S U F C SCHOOL OF EDUCATION; C H A N C E LEWIS; LINDA KUK; C R A I G CHESSON; M. CORKITS; K A R E N L. BRIGHAM; JOSHUA B. ZUGISH, Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-1254 ( D . C . No. 1:09-CV-02970-ZLW) ( D . Colo.)

O R D E R AND JUDGMENT * B e f o r e KELLY, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **

P l a i n t i f f - A p p e l l a n t Lester Washington, appearing pro se, appeals from the d i s t r i c t court's order dismissing his various complaints and the action against C o l o r a d o State University and 43 other defendants without prejudice. On appeal, h e contends, inter alia, that the district court erroneously dismissed his complaint w i t h o u t first examining the facts and evidence. Aplt. Br. at 3-4. Our jurisdiction a r i s e s under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. On December 21, 2009, Mr. Washington filed a pro se complaint. I R. 11. The magistrate judge ordered Mr. Washington to file his complaint using the c o u r t ' s Title VII form. Washington v. Colo. State Univ. Ft. Collins, 2010 WL 1 9 2 4 4 3 8 , at *1 (D. Colo. May 12, 2010). Mr. Washington filed an amended c o mp l a i n t on March 8, 2010. Id. Shortly thereafter the magistrate judge entered a n order directing Mr. Washington to file a second amended complaint that

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the d o c t r i n e s of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, h o w e v e r , for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th C i r . R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge p a n e l has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material a s s i s t a n c e in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th C i r . R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
**

*

c o mp l i e d with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 ("Rule 8"). Id. On May 7, 2 0 1 0 , Mr. Washington filed a second amended complaint. On May 12, the district c o u r t dismissed the complaint, the amended complaint, the second amended c o mp l a i n t , and the action without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8. Id. a t * 2. Mr. Washington timely appealed. We review for abuse of discretion a d i s t r i c t court's order dismissing a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8. See United States ex rel. Lemmon v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 614 F.3d 1163, 1 1 6 7 (10th Cir. 2010). M r . Washington's second amended complaint was 87 pages long and i n c o r p o r a t e d 156 pages of exhibits. See 1 R. (pt. 1) 158-231; 1 R. (pt. 2) 2322 4 2 . It asserted 21 claims against 44 defendants and alleged violation of at least 1 2 0 federal laws, several provisions of the United States Constitution, and n u me r o u s state laws. See I R. (pt. 1) 170, 185-227. U n d e r Rule 8, a plaintiff must make a "short and plain statement of the c l a i m showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). As t h e district court noted, Rule 8 serves the vital purpose of enabling the court and d e f e n d a n t s "to know what claims are being asserted and to be able to respond to t h o s e claims." Washington, 2010 WL 1924438 at *1. General allegations of h a r m are insufficient and the facts must ultimately suggest that the claim is f a c i a l l y plausible; rambling narrations of fact coupled with conclusory legal a s s e r t i o n s do not assist the court or the defendants. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. -3-

1 9 3 7 , 1949 (2009). After reviewing the record, we agree that Mr. Washington's p l e a d i n g s fall well short of Rule 8's requirements. Accordingly, the district court d i d not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint. A F F I R M E D . We GRANT Mr. Washington's motion to proceed IFP and D E N Y all other pending motions. Entered for the Court P a u l J. Kelly, Jr. C i r c u i t Judge

-4-