Abegg v. Adams/Arapahoe School District J8/Aurora Public Schools

Filing 7

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 05/04/12. (nmmsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01084-BNB
WILLIAM ABEGG,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAMS/ARAPAHOE SCHOOL DISTRICT J8/AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
JOHN BERRY, Superintendent, in his professional capacity, and
JILL LLITERAS, Principal, in her professional capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, William Abegg, has filed pro se a Complaint (ECF No. 1). The court
must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Abegg 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. Abegg will be
ordered to file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
The court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that the Complaint is deficient.
For one thing, it is not clear whether Mr. Abegg intends to sue two Defendants or three.
Although he lists three Defendants in the caption of the Complaint, he only provides
addresses for two Defendants on page 2 of the Complaint. Mr. Abegg also fails to link
the addresses listed on page 2 of the Complaint with a specific Defendant, so it is not
clear which address is for which Defendant. Mr. Abegg is advised that he must provide

an address for each named Defendant so that each Defendant can be properly served.
The Court also finds that the Complaint 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. Abegg fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing that
he is entitled to relief. It is clear that Mr. Abegg believes his constitutional rights have
been violated and he also may be asserting claims pursuant to other federal laws.
However, it is not clear which of the named Defendants he is asserting each of his
claims against and it also is not clear what each named Defendant has done that
allegedly violated Mr. Abegg’s rights.
2

Therefore, Mr. Abegg will be ordered to file an amended complaint that complies
with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
In order to state a claim in federal court, Mr. Abegg “must explain what each defendant
did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or
her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Nasious
v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). 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). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Abegg file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8 as discussed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Abegg shall obtain the appropriate courtapproved Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Abegg fails within the time allowed to file an
amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.

DATED May 4, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
3

s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

4