Harris v. U.S. District Court

Filing 3

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiencies and File Amended Complaint that Complies with Rule 8, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 11/21/14. (morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-03153-GPG
(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.)
LAWRENCE HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. FEDERAL COURT JUDGE,
Defendant.

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

Plaintiff, Lawrence Harris, alleges that he resides in Denver. Mr. Harris
submitted pro se a Complaint (ECF No. 1) for money damages. As part of the Court’s
review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1, the Court has determined that the 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 noted above in the caption of this order.
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs:
(1)
X
is not submitted
(2)
is missing notarization
(3)
is missing certified copy of prisoner's trust fund statement for the 6-month
period immediately preceding this filing
(4)
is missing certificate showing current balance in prison account
(5)
is missing required financial information
(6)
is missing an original signature by the prisoner
(7)
is not on proper form
(8)
names in caption do not match names in caption of complaint, petition or
habeas application
(9)
An original and a copy have not been received by the Court.
Only an original has been received.

(10)

other: Plaintiff may pay $400.00 (the $350.00 filing fee plus a $50.00
administrative fee) in lieu of filing an amended application.

Complaint, Petition or Application:
(11)
is not submitted
(12)
is not on proper form (must use the Court’s current form)
(13)
is missing an original signature by the prisoner
(14)
is missing page no.
(15)
uses et al. instead of listing all parties in caption
(16)
An original and a copy have not been received by the Court. Only an
original has been received.
(17)
Sufficient copies to serve each defendant/respondent have not been
received by the Court.
(18)
names in caption do not match names in text
(19)
other:
Mr. Harris is suing an unnamed federal court judge, apparently because he
disagrees with the order of dismissal entered in Harris v. Tulsa 66ers, No. 14-cv-02765LTB (D. Colo. Oct. 16, 2014), which dismissed the action without prejudice for improper
venue. See ECF No. 4 in No. 14-cv-02765. Mr. Harris cannot obtain the relief he
wants by suing the named Defendant or any other judicial officer who presided over his
lawsuits because he disagrees with their decisions. Judges are entitled to absolute
immunity from liability for actions taken in their judicial capacity, unless they acted in the
clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Stump
v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266-67
(10th Cir. 1994). “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took
was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” Stump, 435 U.S.
356–57. Judicial officers are explicitly immunized not only against damages but also
against suits for injunctive relief. See Ysais v. New Mexico, No. 09-2109, 373 F. App’x
863, 866 (10th Cir. April 16, 2010) (unpublished). Althoug h these cases discuss judicial
immunity in the context of civil rights suits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, no federal
statute needs specifically to exclude judges in order for a judge to be entitled to judicial
2

immunity. See 15 Corporations, Inc. v. Denver Prosecutor’s Office, No. 13-cv-00251WJM-MJW, 2013 WL 5781161, at *5 (D. Colo. Oct. 25, 2013) (unpublished). Mr. Harris
makes no argument supported by factual allegations that the unnamed Defendant
judge acted outside of his authority or went beyond his jurisdiction.
The Complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff asserts “Lawrence Harris” as a basis for this
Court’s jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 2. He makes the vague and conclusory allegation, in
grammar as appearing in the Complaint, that
Am asking for the amount of 75,000 tho initial amount
was brought down to an amount of 12,000 wich I didn’t sue
for in Tulsa the initial amount was 75,000 that was brought
down to 12,000 by Court of Appeals Judge in wich didn’t
agree saying that the Court of Appeals Judge pulled fraud
with bring the amount down to 12,000 this granted with the
sining judge out in Tulsa. And aim asking to be put on thier
team as well here as motion goes.
ECF No. 1 at 2.
The amended Complaint Mr. Harris files must comply 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). T he 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

3

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. Harris 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).
It is Mr. Harris’s responsibility to present his claims in a manageable and
readable format that allows the Court and defendants to know what claims are being
asserted and to be able to respond to those claim s. Mr. Harris 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. Harris’s allegations to locate the
4

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).
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.
Harris will be given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint by
submitting an amended Complaint that sues the proper defendants, asserts a proper
basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, states claims clearly and concisely in compliance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and alleges specific facts that demonstrate how each named
defendant personally participated in the asserted constitutional violations. Mr. Harris
must provide the full address for each named defendant. The Court will not consider
any claims raised in separate attachments, amendments, supplements, motions, or
other documents not included in the amended Complaint.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Lawrence Harris, 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 forms for
filing an Application to Proceed in District Court W ithout Prepaying Fees or Costs and a
Complaint, along with the applicable instructions, from the Office of the Clerk or at
www.cod.uscourts.gov, and shall use those forms in curing the designated deficiencies
5

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
and file an amended Complaint within thirty days from the date of this order, some
claims against some defendants or the entire Complaint and action may be dismissed
without further notice.
DATED November 21, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Gordon P. Gallagher

GORDON P. GALLAGHER
United States Magistrate Judge

6