Brandon v. Colvin
ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 5/22/2014. (slibi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01411-BNB
CHARLES W. BRANDON,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Charles W. Brandon, has filed pro se a Complaint. The Court must
construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Brandon 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. Brandon will be
ordered to file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
The Complaint is deficient because 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 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.
Mr. Brandon fails to provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court’s jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is entitled
to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. Mr. Brandon simply alleges that “my social
security disability case was denied and I have a TBI brain injury.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). He
does not provide any factual allegations showing that he is entitled to relief, does not
allege the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, and fails to provide a demand for the relief
sought. 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).
Assuming Mr. Brandon is proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and seeking
judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim
for Social Security disability benefits, he fails to allege when the Commissioner denied
his claim, the reason his claim was denied, whether he appealed the decision, whether
he received a decision on any appeal, and why he believes the decision was erroneous.
Therefore, Mr. Brandon will be ordered to file an amended complaint if he wishes to
pursue his claims in this action. If available, Mr. Brandon should attach to his amended
complaint a copy of the administrative law judge’s decision denying his claim.
The instant action will be dismissed without prejudice if Mr. Brandon 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. Even if the action is
dismissed without prejudice, however, 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 Mr. Brandon file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as discussed in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Brandon shall obtain the appropriate courtapproved Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Brandon 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.
DATED May 22, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
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?