Hoffman v. Monarch Casino Black Hawk
Filing
5
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/19/2013. (skl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03121-BNB
JULIE HOFFMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONARCH CASINO BLACKHAWK,
Defendant.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Julie Hoffman, filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) pro se . The court must
construe the Complaint liberally because Ms. Hoffman 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, Ms. Hoffman will be
ordered to file an amended complaint if she wishes to pursue her claims in this action.
The court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that 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.
Ms. Hoffman’s claims in the Complaint arise out of her former employment at a
casino, and she attaches to the Complaint a copy of a Dismissal and Notice of Rights
she received from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). Ms. Hoffman also attaches to the Complaint a chronological statement
describing a number of incidents that allegedly occurred while she was employed at the
casino. However, Ms. Hoffman fails to provide a short and plain statement of any
specific claims showing she is entitled to relief because she makes only vague and
conclusory references to age and gender discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the
Family and Medical Leave Act. Ms. Hoffman must identify the specific claims she is
asserting and she must allege specific facts in support of each claim. If Ms. Hoffman
intends to assert in this action the claims she presented to the EEOC, she should attach
to her amended complaint a copy of the administrative complaint she filed with the
EEOC if it is available.
The general rule that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally has limits and
2
“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). Therefore, Ms. Hoffman will be ordered to file
an amended complaint that clarifies the claims she is asserting in this action. Ms.
Hoffman must identify, clearly and concisely, the specific claims she is asserting and the
specific factual allegations that support each asserted claim. See Nasious v. Two
Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that 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.”). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Ms. Hoffman 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 Ms. Hoffman shall obtain the appropriate courtapproved pleading form, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Ms. Hoffman fails within the time allowed to file an
amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
3
DATED November 19, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?