Hilts v. Mental Health Partners of Boulder

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 1/14/2015. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00080-GPG
JAHEEM RASHON MARCUS ANTHONY HILTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MENTAL HEALTH PARTNERS OF BOULDER,
Defendant.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Jaheem Rashon Marcus Anthony Hilts, has filed pro se a Complaint
(ECF No. 1). The court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Hilts 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 (10 th Cir. 1991). However, the court should not be an
advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. Mr. Hilts will be ordered to
file an amended complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims in this action.
The Complaint is deficient. First, Mr. Hilts fails to provide an address for himself
or any of the Defendants. Mr. Hilts must provide a complete address for each
Defendant so that they may be served properly.
The Complaint also 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 (10 th
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 (10 th 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 statem ent 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. Hilts fails to provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction because he does not list any statutory authority for his claims in the
jurisdiction portion of the Complaint.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They
possess only that power authorized by Constitution and
statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is
to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests
upon the party asserting jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations
omitted). Mr. Hilts must identify the statutory authority that allows the court to consider
the claims he is asserting in this action.
Mr. Hilts also fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing
2

he is entitled to relief. His vague assertions that he has been hospitalized because of a
text message sent by his brother do not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8.
See Ketchum v. Cruz, 775 F. Supp. 1399, 1403 (D. Colo. 1991) (vague and conclusory
allegations that his rights have been violated does not entitle a pro se pleader to a day
in court regardless of how liberally the pleadings are construed), aff’d, 961 F.2d 916
(10th Cir. 1992). “[I]n analyzing the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, the court need
accept as true only the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual contentions, not his conclusory
allegations.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
For these reasons, Mr. Hilts must file an amended complaint. Mr. Hilts must
identify, clearly and concisely, the specific claims he is asserting and the statutory
authority that allows the court to consider those claims, the specific facts that support
each asserted claim, against which Defendant or Defendants he is asserting each
claim, and what each Defendant did that allegedly violated his rights. See Nasious v.
Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10 th Cir. 2007) (noting that, to
state a claim in federal court, “a complaint 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”). 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). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Hilts file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this

3

order, an amended complaint that complies with this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hilts shall obtain the appropriate court-approved
Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Hilts fails within the time allowed to file an
amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED January 14, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

4