Huggins v. Supreme Court of the United States et al

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/19/11. (lygsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-03239-BNB
PAUL HUGGINS, Prophet Evangel Dr. Rev.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
UNITED STATES CONGRESS,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
STATE OF COLORADO,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, and
COLORADO SUPREME COURT,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Paul Huggins, currently resides in Denver, Colorado. Mr. Huggins,
acting pro se, initiated this action by filing a civil complaint. The Court must construe
the Complaint liberally because Mr. Huggins is not represented by an attorney. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not act as a pro se litigant’s advocate. See
Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Huggins will be ordered to file
an Amended Complaint.
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and has determined that it is deficient
because the Complaint does not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The twin purposes of a complaint are to give the

opposing parties fair notice of the basis for the claims against them so that they may
respond and to allow the Court to conclude that the allegations, if proven, show that the
plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v.
American Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989). The
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 are designed to meet these purposes. See TV
Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991),
aff’d, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992). Specifically, Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint
“must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, .
. . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” The philosophy of Rule 8(a) is reinforced
by Rule 8(d)(1), which provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on
clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules. Prolix, vague, or unintelligible pleadings
violate the requirements of Rule 8.
Mr. Huggins’ claims for the most part are unintelligible. He fails to set forth a
short and plain statement of the grounds on which the Court’s jurisdiction depends or
the basis for relief. Mr. Huggins must submit a pleading that complies with the pleading
requirements of Rule 8 if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
A decision to dismiss a pleading pursuant to Rule 8 is within the trial court’s
sound discretion. See Atkins v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 967 F.2d 1197, 1203 (8th Cir.
1992); Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969). The Court

finds that although the Complaint does not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
2

Mr. Huggins should be given an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint.
Mr. Huggins is instructed that to state a claim in this Court he must state with
specificity what each named Defendant did to him, when they did it, how their action
harmed him, and what specific legal right they violated. Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date of this Order, Mr. Huggins
file an Amended Complaint that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Huggins shall obtain the Court-approved
Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov for use
in filing the Amended Complaint. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Huggins fails within the time allowed to file an
Amended Complaint that complies with this Order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED December 19, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3