Jennings v. Lee

Filing 7

ORDER to File a Second Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/13/2015. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01263-KLM
JAMES E. JENNINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Title VII Complaint [#5]1 (the
“Amended Complaint”).
I. Background
On June 24, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint “that
complies with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado-Civil.“ Order to File
an Amended Complaint [#4] at 4. On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint.
See generally Am. Compl. [#5]. However, Plaintiff did not cure the deficiencies identified
in the Court’s June 24, 2015 Order. The only change Plaintiff made to the original
Complaint was the addition of the following sections: “Amendment Title VII,” “Failure to

1

“[#5]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use
this convention throughout this Order.

1

Promote,” Hostile Work Environment,” and “Harassment.” These sections do not state a
claim for relief. In its entirety, the section titled “Failure to Promote” states “[o]ffice provided
obstacles, does not promote pro se art/skill interest.” Am. Compl. [#5] at 7. Similarly, in
its entirety the section titled “Hostile Work Environment” states “[s]ymbiotic disambiguation presuppose quarreling while manufacturers produce, opposition rather than collaborative
registration and enforce regulation.” Id. In its entirety the section titled “Harassment” states
“misleading suggestions of obscure tangent pathways to securing registration. Backward
mobility compromises the mission or intent of the interrogatories. Misrepresentation.” Id.
The section titled “Amendment Title VII” is confusing. In part it states that “[h]arassment,
hostile work environment, and failure to promote ensued . . . .” Id. at 6. However, there is
no factual context provided that would allow the Court and Defendant to understand what
legal claim or claims Plaintiff asserts against Defendant.
II. Analysis
As the Court explained in its June 24, 2015 Order:
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). The complaint must provide fair notice to the defendant sued
of what the claims are and the grounds supporting such claims, Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555, and allow the Court to conclude that the allegations, if
proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Monument Builders of
Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas, 1480 (10th Cir.
1989). The factual allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Christy Sports, LLC v. Deer Valley
Resort Co., 555 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009). A complaint that does not
meet these requirements may be subject to dismissal pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12.
In addition, Fed. R. Civ . P. 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
2

to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. A
complaint that does not comply with this may also be subject to dismissal.
Order to File an Amended Complaint [#4] at 1-2. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not
meet this standard and is therefore subject to dismissal. However, because Plaintiff
proceeds pro se, the Court will give Plaintiff one final chance to amend his claims. If
Plaintiff wishes to further amend his claims, he may file a Second Amended Complaint.
However, Plaintiff is reminded 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.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d
1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007); see also Lazarov v. Kimmel, No.10-cv-01238CMA, 2010 WL 2301749 (D. Colo. June 8, 2010).
Order to File an Amended Complaint [#4] at 2. As the Court previously explained:
Plaintiff’s [Amended] Complaint fails to clearly articulate the specific
allegations as to Defendant and the corresponding basic details, such as the
date of any specific actions by Defendant. For example, while Plaintiff brings
his claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq., he fails to allege that he was employed by Defendant or
provide the date when his employment was terminated. Plaintiff also fails to
provide information regarding whether he is a member of a protected class
or if he engaged in opposition to an unlawful employment practice. See. e.g.,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)-2(a)(1) (discrimination), 2000(e)-3(a) (retaliation).
Order to File an Amended Complaint [#4] at 2-3.
III. Conclusion
In order to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this matter, as
dictated by Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds it necessary to
sua sponte strike the Amended Complaint [#5] due to its failures as set forth above. The
Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that complies with this

3

Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado-Civil. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff cure the deficiencies designated above
within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to cure the designated deficiencies
within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
Dated: August 13, 2015

4