Jenkins v. U.S. Government Intelligence Agents et al

Filing 9

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/27/13. (nmmsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01488-BNB
BOBBY JACK JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ET AL.,
U.S. GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE AGENTS,
AIR FORCE – WASHINGTON D.C.,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION INTELLIGENCE AGENT JEFF GRAHAM,
State of Wyoming,
THE HONORABLE MATT MEAD, Gover. of Wyoming,
HONORABLE NANCY D. FREUDENTHAL, Chief United States District Judge,
TIMOTHY W. GIST, Assistant United States Attorney,
MARK LANZMAN, Attorney,
STATE OF WYO WORKER COMPENSATION, Cheyenne Wyo – State of Wyo, and
USDA HUD – LOW INCOME HOUSING DEPT. OF THE STATE OF WYO – SAGE
APARTMENT,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Bobby Jack Jenkins, is a prisoner in the custody of the United States
Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence, Colorado. Mr.
Jenkins has filed pro se a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1). The court must construe the
Prisoner Complaint liberally because Mr. Jenkins 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. Jenkins will be
ordered to file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.

The court has reviewed the Prisoner Complaint and finds that the Prisoner
Complaint is deficient. For one thing, it is not clear exactly who Mr. Jenkins is suing
because he improperly uses “et al.” in the caption of the Prisoner Complaint and the list
of parties in the text of the Prisoner Complaint includes individuals and entities that are
not listed as Defendants in the caption. Pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, “[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties.” Pursuant to Rule
10.1J. of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado-Civil, “[p]arties shall be listed in a caption with one party per line. The proper
name of a party shall be in capital letters, and any identifying text shall be in upper and
lower case immediately following the proper name.” Regardless of who Mr. Jenkins
names as Defendants, he must provide a complete address for each named Defendant
so that they may be served properly.
The Court also finds that the Prisoner 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
2

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 Rule 8.
Mr. Jenkins fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing that
he is entitled to relief and he fails to provide a clear statement of the relief he seeks. To
the extent Mr. Jenkins contends that Defendants have violated federal criminal statutes,
Mr. Jenkins lacks standing to prosecute a criminal action. See, e.g., Cok v. Cosentino,
876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1989) (per curiam); Connecticut Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts
Plating Co., 457 F.2d 81, 86-87 (2d Cir.1972) (“It is a truism, and has been for many
decades, that in our federal system crimes are always prosecuted by the Federal
Government, not as has sometimes been done in Anglo-American jurisdictions by
private complaints.”); Winslow v. Romer, 759 F. Supp. 670, 673 (D. Colo.1991) (“Private
citizens generally have no standing to institute federal criminal proceedings.”). To the
extent Mr. Jenkins asserts a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the claim is
unclear. In short, it is not clear why Mr. Jenkins is suing the named Defendants in this
court in this action or what specific relief he is seeking. Therefore, Mr. Jenkins must file
an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue any claims in this action.
Mr. Jenkins must identify, clearly and concisely and in plain language, who he is
suing, the specific claims he is asserting, the specific facts that support each asserted
claim, against which Defendant or Defendants he is asserting each claim, and what
each Defendant did that allegedly violated his rights. See Nasious v. Two Unknown
3

B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that, to state a claim in
federal court, “a complaint 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”). 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. Jenkins file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended Prisoner Complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as discussed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Jenkins shall obtain the court-approved Prisoner
Complaint form (with the assistance of his case manager or the facility’s legal assistant),
along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Jenkins fails to file an amended Prisoner
Complaint that complies with this order within the time allowed, the action will be
dismissed without further notice.
DATED June 27, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

4