Wirth v. Hickenlooper, et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying without prejudice 56 Motion for Leave; denying without prejudice 66 Motion for Leave. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 06/23/2014. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13–cv–03309–REB–KMT

MARTIN THOMAS WIRTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, in his official capacity as Governor of Colorado,
JOHN SUTHERS, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Colorado,
STEPHEN A. GROOME, in his official capacity as 11th District Court Judge,
VICKI ARMSTRONG, in her official capacity as Public Trustee of Park County,
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
LAWRENCE E. CASTLE, in his corporate and individual capacities,
THE CASTLE LAW GROUP, LLC,
MARY HAGER, individually, and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE),
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Second Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint” (Doc. No. 56, filed April 2, 2014) and “Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for
Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint” (Doc. No. 66, filed June 22, 2014).
Though Plaintiff has filed a motion to substitute his complaint, it appears he wishes to
significantly amend his complaint. The court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff intends for
his proposed supplemental complaint to take the place of the current, operative complaint (Doc.
No. 14) and also is unable to determine if he wishes to supplement the operative complaint or the

proposed amended complaint attached to his previously-filed motion to amend (Doc. No. 56).
The court also notes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(b).
Plaintiff previously amended his complaint (Doc. No. 14) and attempted to file another
amended complaint that was stricken (see Doc. Nos. 38, 44). However, the plaintiff may not
amend his complaint simply by filing piecemeal amendments and supplements. Rather, he must
file the entire proposed amended complaint. The plaintiff may not incorporate by reference his
original complaint. The amended complaint must stand alone; it must contain all of the
plaintiff’s claims. Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that “an
amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without
legal effect”).
Finally, the court notes that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint and supplemental
complaint fail to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 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 Rule 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). 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The philosophy
of Rule 8(a) is reinforced by Rule 8(d)(1), which provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple,

2

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.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Second Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint” (Doc. No. 56) and “Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File a
Supplemental Complaint” (Doc. No. 66) are DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to
amend his complaint, he may file a renewed motion to amend and attach a proposed amended
complaint, in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(b), and in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules of Practice.
Dated this 23rd day of June, 2014.

3