Benton v. Town of South Fork et al

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/21/12. (lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00336-BNB
DENNY BENTON, Police Officer (Unemployed Police Officer Due to Defendants
Intentional Actions),
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF SOUTH FORK AND POLICE DEPARTMENT, Individually,
FORMER POLICE CHIEF HERRERA, RANDY
CURRENT POLICE CHIEF JAMES CHAVEZ, at Times Acting Town Manager and
Clerk,
FAIRCHILD, SHARON,
FORMER TOWN MANAGER WRIGHT, TODD,
FORMER MAYOR HEERSINK, LARRY,
TOWN MANAGER MATHEWS, BILL,
TRUSTEE HAWETHORNE, GROVE,
COLORADO STATE PATROL DISPATCH ALAMOSA, COLORADO AND
POLICE OFFICER STEWART, PAM,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Denny Benton, initiated this action on February 8, 2012, by filing pro se
a Title VII Complaint. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must construe the Title VII Complaint liberally because Mr. Benton 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 stated
below, Mr. Benton will be ordered to file an amended complaint.

The Court has reviewed the Title VII Complaint and has determined that the
Complaint is deficient because it 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. Benton fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing that
he is entitled to relief. Mr. Benton has checked blanks on the preprinted Title VII
Complaint form indicating that Defendants discriminated against him based on his race
and age by failing to promote him and discharging him from employment. Mr. Benton
further alleges that Defendants have violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights by retaliating against him because he was named as a defendant in a federal civil
2

rights suit. In support of his claims, Mr. Benton attaches a single-spaced, doublecolumned document that makes numerous allegations against the individual
defendants, and purports to assert several pendent state law claims. He also attaches
a demand letter that he submitted to the Town of South Fork, Colorado, and a copy of
the Division of Civil Rights’ notice-of-right-to-sue letter. However, Mr. Benton fails to
allege facts in the Complaint to support his vague and conclusory allegations that
indicate he is entitled to relief under Title VII.
Mr. Benton apparently expects the Court and the defendants to speculate about
the factual basis for his Title VII claims. That is neither a judicial function nor the
responsibility of the defendants. Mr. Benton’s must present his claims in a manageable
format that allows the Court and the defendants to know what claims are being asserted
and to be able to respond to those claims. Mr. Benton must allege, simply and
concisely, his specific claims for relief. He may attach documents to the amended Title
VII complaint, but he may not rely solely on those documents to present his claims. 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).
The Court, therefore, will direct Mr. Benton to file an amended complaint on a
Title VII Court-approved form that sets forth his claims in a simple and concise manner.
Mr. Benton is instructed to complete the form in full. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Benton file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Fed. R.
3

Civ. P. 8 as discussed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Benton shall obtain the Court-approved Title VII
Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Benton fails to file an amended Title VII
Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the Title VII Complaint
and the action will be dismissed without further notice. The dismissal shall be without
prejudice.
DATED February 21, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

4