Arnold v. Triumph Properties, LLC.

Filing 7

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 3/26/15. (morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00537-GPG
JAMES G. ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRIUMPH PROPERTIES, L.L.C., d/b/a Retreat at Harbor Cove,
Defendant.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, James G. Arnold, has filed pro se a “Complaint Pursuant to Americans
With Disabilities Act: 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6: et seq.” (ECF No. 1). The court must
construe the complaint liberally because Mr. Arnold 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. Mr. Arnold 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 (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. Arnold fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing he is
entitled to relief. He contends he was subjected to discrimination in a place of public
accommodation, an assisted living facility in Grand Junction, Colorado, that is owned
and operated by Defendant. Although Mr. Arnold references the Americans with
Disabilities Act in the complaint, he specifically claims his rights under Title II of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a - 2000a-6, have been violated. Title II of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public
accommodation “on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000a(a). Mr. Arnold does not allege any facts that demonstrate he suffered
discrimination on the basis of his race, color, religion, or national origin. To the extent
the complaint can be read as asserting claims of discrimination in a place of public
accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12181-89, Mr. Arnold also fails to allege specific facts that demonstrate he suffered
2

discrimination on the basis of a disability. Furthermore, regardless of whether Mr.
Arnold is asserting his claims pursuant to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title
III of the ADA, he may not recover damages. See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises,
Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401-02 (1968) (per curiam) (Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);
Rhodes v. Southern Nazarene Univ., 554 F. App’x 685, 690 (10 th Cir. 2014) (Title III of
the ADA). Because an award of damages is the only specific relief Mr. Arnold requests
in the complaint, he also fails to provide a short and plain statement of the relief he
seeks in this action.
For these reasons, Mr. Arnold will be directed to file an amended complaint. Mr.
Arnold 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 (10 th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, “in 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.
3

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Arnold file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order, an amended complaint that complies with this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Arnold shall obtain the appropriate courtapproved Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Arnold fails within the time allowed to file an
amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED March 26, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

4