Madison v. Volunteers Of America et al

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/29/12. (lyg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00333-BNB
HENRY LEON MADISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA,
SUNSET PARK APARTMENTS,
DIANN KUNZ,
ROYA ROSADO,
LINDA FULKA,
DENVER COUNTY COURT, in it [sic] official capacity,
MATTHEW M. MCCONVILLE, in his official and personal capacities,
CECILIA ZAPATA, in her official and personal capacities,
SUZANNE RAZOOK, in her official and personal capacities,
MARK TSCHELLER, in his official and personal capacities, and
LARRY L. BOHNING, in his official and personal capacities,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

This action was initiated by Henry Leon Madison, who submitted a Complaint and
a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on February
8, 2012. Mr. Madison has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Madison 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 be an
advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons discussed

below, Mr. Madison will be directed to file an Amended Complaint that complies with the
Court’s directives.
In the Complaint, Mr. Madison appears to assert two claims, although the claims
each contain many different “counts” against different defendants. Because of the way
Mr. Madison has organized the Complaint, his claims are confusing and difficult to read.
In general, Mr. Madison asserts that Defendants Volunteers of America (VOA), Sunset
Park Apartments (SPA), Dianne Kunz, Roya Rosado, and Linda Fulka (collectively, the
“VOA Defendants”) conspired with Defendants Denver County Court (DCC), Matthew
M. McConville, Suzanne Razook, Mark Tscheller and Judge Larry L. Bohning
(collectively, the “DCC Defendants”) in order to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional
rights. Mr. Madison asserts that he is a 64-year old, African-American veteran who
suffers from the disability of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which causes
memory loss and disorientation and requires him to be heavily medicated. Mr. Madison
alleges that he found housing at SPA on March 1, 2006, and he then notified SPA that
his disability would make it nearly impossible for him to pay rent on time. Mr. Madison
asserts that the VOA Defendants accommodated his disability for five years by allowing
him to pay his rent late or providing him with reminders.
Mr. Madison alleges that he notified the VOA Defendants when he was unable to
pay his rent in September of 2011, and they agreed to accept rent for September and
October on October 1, 2011. However, on October 1, 2011, he alleges that he
attempted to pay rent and the VOA Defendants informed him that the rent would not be
accepted and his tenancy was being terminated.

2

Next, Mr. Madison alleges that an eviction proceeding was filed against him by
the VOA Defendants in the District Court for the City and County of Denver in Case No.
2011C72302. Mr. Madison alleges that he filed a counterclaim and jury demand that
was suppressed by the DCC Defendants. He further alleges that the DCC Defendants
refused to provide any reasonable accommodations for his disability. He asserts that a
trial in his state court case was held on October 12, 2011, and that the Denver court
refused to acknowledge that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. Mr. Madison asserts
that he was forced to settle the case, and that he agreed to vacate the SPA premises by
November 13, 2011. He further asserts that the VOA Defendants filed an eviction
report against him and unlawfully turned his account over to a collection service. Mr.
Madison asserts that the above actions have violated his rights pursuant to the Fair
Housing Act (FHA), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
As a preliminary matter, it appears that Mr. Madison’s claims challenging actions
taken by the DCC Defendants during the course of the state court action are barred by
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);
Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes “a party losing in state court . . . from seeking what
in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district
court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's
federal rights.” Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). The doctrine
applies when the Plaintiff alleges “an injury that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a state
court decision, such that success in the federal court would require overturning the state
3

court decision.” See Epps v. Creditnet, Inc., 320 F.3d 756, 758-59 (7th Cir. 2003)
(citations omitted). Plaintiff essentially asks this Court to determine that the state court’s
determinations during the eviction proceeding were incorrect and to award him
damages, in contravention of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Mr. Madison is cautioned
that he may not assert any claims which challenge the constitutionality of the state court
eviction proceeding in this action.
The Court further finds that Mr. Madison’s complaint fails to 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.
Mr. Madison fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing
that he is entitled to relief. Instead, his claims are repetitive, verbose, and confusing.
4

Neither the Court nor the defendants are required to guess in order to determine the
claims Mr. Madison is asserting. The general rule that pro se pleadings must be
construed liberally has limits and “the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving
as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v.
Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
Mr. Madison will be directed to file an amended complaint in accordance with the
directives outlined above. Mr. Madison is directed that in order “to state a claim in
federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him [ ]; when the
defendant did it; how the defendant’ s action harmed him [ ]; and, what specific legal
right [Mr. Madison] believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E.
Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Henry Leon Madison, file, within thirty (30) days from
the date of this order, an amended complaint that asserts proper claims and complies
with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Madison 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 Plaintiff fails within the time allowed to file an
amended complaint that complies with this order to the Court’s satisfaction, the
complaint and the action will be dismissed without further notice.

5

DATED February 29, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

6