Henson v. Social Security Admin
Filing
5
ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/22/14. (nmarb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01117-BNB
DAWN M. HENSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.,
Defendant.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Dawn Henson, has filed a Complaint pro se. The Court must construe
the Complaint liberally because Ms. Henson 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. Henson will be ordered
to file an amended complaint if she wishes to pursue her claims in this action.
First, Ms. Henson names an improper Defendant. It is apparent that Ms. Henson
seeks judicial review of a final decision denying her administrative claim for
Social Security disability benefits. As a result, the appropriate Defendant in this action
is the Commissioner of Social Security and not the Social Security Administration. See
20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d).
The Court also finds that the Complaint is deficient because the Complaint 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 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).
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. Henson fails to provide a short and plain statement of her claims showing
that she is entitled to relief. In particular, Ms. Henson fails to allege the reason her
administrative claim was denied and why she believes that decision was erroneous.
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). Therefore, Ms. Henson will be ordered to file an
amended complaint if she wishes to pursue her claims. If available, Ms. Henson should
attach to her amended complaint a copy of the administrative law judge’s decision
2
denying her claim.
The instant action will be dismissed without prejudice if Ms. Henson fails within
the time allowed to file an amended complaint that complies with this order and the
pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Ms. Henson
is warned that, even if the action is dismissed without prejudice, the dismissal may bar
recovery if the time for filing an action seeking review of the denial of Social Security
benefits expires. See Rodriguez v. Colorado, 521 F. App’x 670, 671-72 (10th Cir.
2013). Pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, a civil action must be
commenced “within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of [any final decision of
the Commission of Social Security] or within such further time as the Commissioner of
Social Security may allow.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Ms. Henson 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. Henson shall obtain the appropriate courtapproved Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Ms. Henson fails within the time allowed to file an
amended complaint that complies with this order as directed, the action will be
dismissed without further notice.
3
DATED April 22, 2014, 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?