DeGourville v. Andrews International

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/13/2012. (skssl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01784-BNB
ANTHONY E. DEGOURVILLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL,
TOM DAHL,
ROBERT WIBBEN,
PETE BRADLEY,
TOM PARRISH, and
MARLA GIBSON,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Anthony E. Degourville, filed pro se a Title VII Complaint. He has been
granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must construe the Title VII Complaint liberally because Mr. Degourville
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. Degourville will be ordered to file an amended complaint.
The Court has reviewed the Title VII Complaint and has determined that the Title
VII 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. Degourville fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing
that he is entitled to relief, because he has not completed pages three through five of
the Title VII complaint form. Mr. Degourville has checked a variety of blanks on the
preprinted Title VII Complaint form indicating that Defendant discriminated against him
on the basis of race, color, national origin, and retaliation. However, Mr. Degourville
fails to assert any facts in support of these vague and conclusory allegations that
indicate he is entitled to relief. Although Mr. Degourville attaches to his Title VII
Complaint copies of the Charge of Discrimination and Dismissal and Notice of Rights of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rejecting his administrative claim, that
decision does not provide the Court with the factual basis for the claims Mr. Degourville
2

is asserting in this action.
In addition, supervisors and other employees may not be held personally liable
under Title VII. See Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 899 (10th Cir. 1996). Therefore,
the named defendants who appear to be supervisors or employees of Defendant
Andrews International may not be proper parties to this action.
Mr. Degourville will be ordered to file an amended complaint if he wishes to
pursue his claims in this action. Mr. Degourville must provide a short and plain
statement of his claims that allows the Court and Defendants to understand what he is
claiming in this action and to be able to respond to those claims. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Anthony E. Degourville, 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. Degourville shall obtain the appropriate
court-approved Title VII complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Degourville fails within the time allowed to file
an amended complaint that complies with this order, the complaint and the action will be
dismissed without further notice.
DATED July 13, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3