Singh v. Newak

Filing 4

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To Cure Deficiencies and File Amended Complaint That Complies With Rule 8, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/12/14. (nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00387-BNB
(The above civil action number must appear on all future papers
sent to the court in this action. Failure to include this number
may result in a delay in the consideration of your claims.)
AMRITPAL SINGH
Plaintiff,
v.
DARLA NOWAK, and
ATTORNEY ROSS-SHANNON BRADLEY,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CURE DEFICIENCIES AND
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 8

Plaintiff has submitted a Complaint and Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. As part of the court’s review pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(a), the court has determined that the submitted documents are
deficient as described in this order. Plaintiff will be directed to cure the following if he
wishes to pursue his claims. Any papers that Plaintiff files in response to this order
must include the civil action number on this order.
Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915:
is not submitted
1.
2.
is not on proper form
3.
xx
is missing original signature by plaintiff/petitioner/applicant
is missing affidavit
4.
5.
affidavit is incomplete
affidavit is not notarized or is not properly notarized
6.
xx
7.
names in caption do not match names in caption of complaint, petition or
application

8.

xx

other: The motion and affidavit, whether handwritten or typed, must be
legible and written in capital and lower case letters in compliance with
Rule 10.1 of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court.

Complaint or Petition:
9.
is not submitted
is not on proper form
10.
11.
is missing an original signature by the plaintiff/petitioner/applicant
12.
is incomplete
13.
uses et al. instead of listing all parties in caption
14.
names in caption do not match names in text
addresses must be provided for all defendants/respondents in “Section A.
15.
Parties” of complaint, petition or habeas application
16.
xx
other: The amended complaint, whether handwritten or typed, must be
legible and written in capital and lower case letters in compliance with
Rule 10.1 of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court.
The Court must construe liberally the Complaint because Mr. Singh 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. Singh will be ordered to file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his
claims in this action.
The Complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The complaint is verbose and unreadable on many
pages. The Court directs Mr. Singh to submit an amended complaint that complies with
the pleading requirements of Rule 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

2

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 Rule 8.
Claims must be presented clearly and concisely in a manageable format that
allows a court and a defendant to know what claims are being asserted and to be able
to respond to those claims. New Home Appliance Ctr., Inc., v. Thompson, 250 F.2d
881, 883 (10th Cir. 1957). For the purposes of Rule 8(a), "[i]t is sufficient, and indeed all
that is permissible, if the complaint concisely states facts upon which relief can be
granted upon any legally sustainable basis." Id.
Mr. Singh is advised that, in order to state a claim in federal court, he "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." Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158,
1163 (10th Cir. 2007). However, in so doing, he should not repeat facts over and over,
succeeding only in confusing the Court and defendants as to his asserted claims.
It is Mr. Singh’s responsibility to present his claims in a manageable and
3

readable format that allows the Court and defendants to know what claims are being
asserted and to be able to respond to those claims. Mr. Singh must allege, simply and
concisely, his specific claims for relief, including the specific rights that allegedly have
been violated and the specific acts of each defendant that allegedly violated his rights.
The Court does not require a long, chronological recitation of facts. Nor should the
Court or defendants be required to sift through Mr. Singh’s verbose allegations to locate
the heart of each claim. 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).
Finally, Mr. Singh is advised that Rule 10.1 of the Local Rules of Practice for this
Court requires that all papers filed in cases in this Court be double-spaced and legible.
See D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1. Mr. Singh’s amended complaint, whether handwritten or
typed, must be double-spaced and legible, in capital and lower-case letters, in
compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1.
A decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 8 is within the trial court’s
sound discretion. See Atkins v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 967 F.2d 1197, 1203 (8th Cir.
1992); Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969). The Court
finds that the complaint does not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Mr. Singh
will be given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his complaint by submitting an
amended complaint that states claims clearly and concisely in compliance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8. The Court will not consider any claims raised in separate attachments,
amendments, supplements, motions, or other documents not included in the amended
4

complaint.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff cure the deficiencies designated above within thirty
(30) days from the date of this order. Any papers that Plaintiff files in response to this
order must include the civil action number on this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain the court-approved Motion and
Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Complaint forms, along
with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov, and shall use those forms in
curing the designated deficiencies and filing an amended complaint that complies with
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to cure the designated deficiencies
within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, some claims against some
defendants, or the entire complaint and the action may be dismissed without further
notice.
DATED February 12, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

5