Claypool v. Thompson et al

Filing 8

ORDER. The 1 Complaint for Damages is dismissed. This case is dismissed. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/5/13. (mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01180-PAB
GEORGE LEONARD CLAYPOOL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRUCE R. THOMPSON (C.F.O.) and
BANK OF AMERICA N/A,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Affidavit of Facts “Ammended” [Docket No.
7] filed by plaintiff George Leonard Claypool. Mr. Claypool brought this action against
defendants Bruce R. Thompson and Bank of America, N/A on May 3, 2013, alleging
violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, and
Fourteenth Amendments in the foreclosure and sale of his property by defendants.
Docket No. 1 at 1.
On May 7, 2013, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should
not be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Docket
No. 4. In particular, the Court noted that the complaint referred to an “Affidavit of
Facts,” but that no such affidavit was attached to the complaint. Plaintiff’s responded to
the Order to Show Cause by filing an Affidavit of Facts. Docket No. 5. The Court found
that the affidavit did not comply with Rule 8(a) and, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status,

permitted him an opportunity to amend his complaint. Docket No. 6. In response,
plaintiff filed the instant amended affidavit. Docket No. 7.
As the Court explained in its previous Orders, see Docket Nos. 4 and 6, “mere
labels and conclusions[ ] and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not suffice; a plaintiff must offer specific factual allegations to support each claim.”
Burnett v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys., Inc., 706 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir.
2013) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, “to state a claim in federal court, a
complaint must explain what each defendant did to [the plaintiff]; when the defendant
did it; how the defendant’s action harmed [the plaintiff]; 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 amended affidavit sets forth the following factual allegations:
•

The contract that was signed for the property located at (436 West 4th
Street, Palisade, Colorado [81526]) has only one signature that
belongs to “George Leonard Claypool” and no-one else.

•

There was an EFT sent to Bank of America N/A on January 24,2012
in the amount of $75,000.00 draft #4598 that was accepted by Bank
of America N/A and then denied.

•

Your Affiant has proof that the Defendants Bruce R. Thompson (CFO)
of BANK OF AMERICA N/A and BANK OF AMERICA N/A has
committed Fraud upon the Affiant “George” one of the People.

•

Your Affiant has proof that the Defendants have not given full
disclosure of the Truth in Lending rules and that the Defendants did
not Loan your Affiant “George” any moneys for the purchase said
property and that the Promissory Note that was signed by your Affiant
was in fact turned over to the US Treasury for full payment on or
about August 14, 2006.

•

Your Affiant “George” was not told at the time of closing that the
property in question was being signed over to BANK OF AMERICA
2

N/A for BANK OF AMERICA N/A to resale it back to your Affiant
“George”. This action by the Defendants proves Fraud and deception
on the Affiant “George”.
Docket No. 7 at 2-3, ¶¶ 6-8. The remainder of the affidavit contains statements of law
and general allegations. See, e.g., Docket No. 7 at 2, ¶ 3 (“Your Affiant notices that in
these united States of America, the authority of any and all governments resides in the
People, the Natural Persons, of the land, for government is a fiction of the mind and
can only be created by the People, effected by the People, and overseen by the People
for the benefit of only the People.”).
The factual allegations in the complaint, as supplemented by the affidavit of facts
and the amended affidavit of facts, are insufficient under Rule 8(a) as they do not
“explain what each defendant did to [the plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the
defendant’s action harmed [the plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff
believes the defendant violated.” Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1163. These statements are
likewise too vague and conclusory to fulfill the purpose of notice pleading, which is to
“give the defendant[s] fair notice of what the [plaintiff’s] claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Plaintiff has been afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint and has not
complied with the requirements of Rule 8(a), as specifically articulated in the Orders
issued on May 7 and May 17, 2013. Docket Nos. 4 and 6. Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint for Damages [Docket No. 1] filed by plaintiff
George Leonard Claypool is DISMISSED. It is further

3

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.

DATED June 5, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

4