Man v. CFO-LLC et al.

Filing 10

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 6/09/2014. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01010-BNB
DIANE MAHONEY MAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STANLEY ANDERSON, and
CFO-LLC, et al,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Diane Mahoney Man, resides in Ohio. She has filed pro se a Complaint
for damages. Ms. Man has been granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915.

The Court must construe liberally the Complaint because Ms. Man 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. Man will be directed to file an amended complaint.
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). 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.” Prolix, vague, or unintelligible pleadings violate Rule 8.
The Complaint fails to provide “a generalized statement of the facts from which
the defendant may form a responsive pleading.” New Home Appliance Ctr., Inc., v.
Thompson, 250 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1957). Plaintiff must allege the specific acts of
each Defendant that allegedly violated her rights. 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. In order for Ms.
Man to state a claim in federal court, his "complaint must explain what each defendant
did to him . . . ; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him . . . ;
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).
Ms. Man alleges in the Complaint that she is the victim “of the defendants’
[f]raudulent actions wherein they induced my la[t]e husband, Colonel Joseph Man, and
myself to invest in their fraudulent schemes all of the assets of our marriage,” (ECF No.
7, at 2) which caused her to lose her home in foreclosure proceedings. However, Ms.
2

Man does not assert a jurisdictional basis for a claim against the Defendants, or bring
any specific claims for relief with supporting factual allegations.1 Further, in the text of
the Complaint, Ms. Man makes allegations against the “representatives of the
foreclosing bank” and the “law firm representing the bank” (id. at 3), but she does not
identify those persons in the caption of the Complaint, or state specific claims for relief
against them.
It is Ms. Man’s responsibility to present her claim or claims in a manageable and
readable format that allows the Court and the defendants to know what claims are being
asserted and to be able to respond to those claims. 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).
The Court finds that the complaint does not meet the requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8. Ms. Man will be given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in her complaint
by submitting an amended complaint that states her claims clearly and concisely in
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, that names each defendant in the caption of the
Complaint, and alleges specific facts that demonstrate how each named defendant

1

The Court takes judicial notice that on February 13, 2014, in Criminal Action 12-cr-00139-CMA
(ECF No. 222), Stanley W. Anderson pleaded guilty to one count of Wire Fraud and Aiding and Abetting,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1342 and 2, and one count of engaging in a Monetary Transaction in Property
Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2. See Gee v. Pacheco,
627 F.3d 1178, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of its own records
and files) (internal citation omitted). According to the Indictment, Defendant Anderson, a Colorado
resident, and his co-defendants, conducting business through CFO-LLC and Trinity International
Enterprises, Inc., engaged in a scheme to defraud investors from October 2005 through December 2008.
(Case No. 12-cr-00139-CMA, at ECF No. 1).

3

personally participated in the asserted violations of his rights. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Diane Mahoney Man, within thirty (30) days from the
date of this order, file an amended complaint on the court-approved Complaint form
that complies with this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Man shall obtain a copy of the court-approved
Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Ms. Man fails to file an amended complaint that
complies with this order within the time allowed, the complaint and the action may be
dismissed without further notice.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 9th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

4