Heil v. No Named Defendants

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/2/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00525-GPG

DALE ROBERT HEIL, Secured Party Creditor,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
v.
NO NAMED DEFENDANTS,
Defendants/Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Dale Robert Heil, is a resident of Meeker, Colorado. Plaintiff, acting pro
se, initiated this action by filing a “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right
and Notice of Denial of Consent” (ECF No. 1) on March 12, 2015. On March 17, 2015,
the Court ordered Mr. Heil to cure deficiencies in his document (ECF No. 3). On April
16, 2015, Mr. Heil filed a Complaint (ECF No. 5) alleging various claims against the
Federal Courts and States Courts resulting from his being forced to register as a sex
offender because his sex offense conviction occurred before the sex registry laws were
enacted. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915.
(ECF No. 6).
On April 27, 2015, the Court ordered Mr. Heil to file an amended complaint within
thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 7). Specifically, the Court ordered Mr. Heil to file an amended
Complaint that complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, sues the proper
parties, alleges specific facts in support of his claims and demonstrates how each

named Defendant personally participated in the asserted constitutional violation. Plaintiff
was also notified that if he failed to amend the Complaint as directed within the time
allowed, the Complaint and action could be dismissed without further notice. On May
29, 2015, a few days after the thirty day deadline, Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint.
(ECF No. 8). After reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court has determined that
Plaintiff failed to amend the Complaint as directed. Therefore, for the reasons
discussed below, the Amended Complaint and action will be dismissed without
prejudice.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Plaintiff is a pro se
litigant. 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 act as a pro se litigant’s
advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
In the April 27, 2015 Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to identify, clearly and
concisely, the defendant he is suing with respect to each asserted claim and what each
named defendant did that allegedly violated his rights. The Court also noted that the
Plaintiff’s Complaint included unnecessary and unintelligible legal argument about the
UCC and his status as a Secured Party Creditor.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to cure the deficiencies as directed in the
Court’s April 27, 2015 Order. Instead of asserting claims against proper parties, as
directed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint lists no parties as Defendants. He states that
“[i]t was never Plaintiff’s intent to sue anyone or file a civil rights action against any
person. Plaintiff only used the courts as defendants [in the initial Complaint] because
the courts have to make a ruling, and the lower courts refused to do so.” (ECF No. 8 at
2

3). The Court specifically instructed Plaintiff that he needed to name what a defendant
did to him, when they did it, how the action harmed him, and what specific legal right the
defendant violated. By failing to list any defendant whatsoever, the Plaintiff has failed to
properly amend his complaint.
Furthermore, the Amended Complaint fails to use all sections of the courtapproved complaint form and does not include the “Claim for Relief and Supporting
Factual Allegations” section or the “Request for Relief” section. The Plaintiff was
previously instructed, in the Court’s March 17, 2015 Order directing him to cure
deficiencies, of the requirement to use the court-approved form to file his complaint.
(ECF No. 3).
Finally, the Court notes that the Amended Complaint still includes unnecessary
and unintelligible legal argument about the UCC and Plaintiff’s status as a Secured
Party Creditor. Specifically, the Amended Complaint states that Plaintiff “found a
remedy and then filed a UCC Financing Statement,” which “puts him under ‘Common
Law’ jurisdiction” and “changed his status from a Debtor to a Creditor.” (ECF No. 8 at 2).
It is completely unclear how the UCC relates to the Plaintiff’s argument that he should
not be forced to register as a sex offender.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the Court will dismiss the Amended
Complaint and action for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and a court order. See
Atkins v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 967 F.2d 1197, 1203 (8th Cir. 1992) (decision to
dismiss complaint pursuant to Rule 8 is within trial court’s sound discretion). The Court
also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status will be denied for the
3

purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Plaintiff
files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8), and the action are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and a court order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 2nd day of

June

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

4