Vivo v. Brenda

Filing 8

ORDER. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice due to the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This case is closed in its entiretly. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/8/13. (mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01695-PAB
ZITA M. VIVO,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRENDA,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Notice [Docket No. 7] filed by plaintiff Zita
M. Vivo.1 On June 27, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in this case [Docket No. 1].
Plaintiff’s complaint did not provide sufficient facts in support of her claim or claims and
did not sufficiently assert the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The claim
consisted of only four words and no defendant is specifically identified. See Docket No.
1. On July 1, 2013, the Court directed plaintiff to show cause why this case should not
be dismissed because the complaint does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and due
to this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Docket No. 6 at 3.
In the notice, plaintiff provides additional factual allegations about the nature of
her claim or claims against defendant. However, even construing plaintiff’s notice

1

Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes her pleadings
liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, it is not the proper function of the Court to
assume the role of advocate for the pro se plaintiff. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. The Court
will construe plaintiff’s Notice as a response to the order to show cause.

liberally, her allegations fall short of the pleading requirements imposed by Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). No defendant is identified and no specific wrong committed by another person
is stated. Moreover, plaintiff’s notice does not state any basis for the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, because plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause
does not provide any information curing the aforementioned deficiencies, the Court will
dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Cunningham
v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005).
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice due to the
Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that this case is closed in its entirety.

DATED July 8, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

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

2