Jackson-Cobb v. Sprint United Management et al

Filing 5

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 6/22/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01308-GPG
EDITH L. JACKSON-COBB,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPRINT UNITED MANAGEMENT,
Defendant.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Edith L. Jackson-Cobb, has filed pro se a Title VII Complaint (ECF No.
1). The court must construe the complaint liberally because Ms. Jackson-Cobb 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. Ms. Jackson-Cobb will be
ordered to file an amended complaint if she wishes to pursue her claims in this action.
The complaint is deficient because Ms. Jackson-Cobb fails to 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.
Ms. Jackson-Cobb fails to provide a short and plain statement of her claims
showing she is entitled to relief and she fails to specify the relief she seeks. Ms.
Jackson-Cobb indicates in the complaint that Defendant discriminated against her
because of race, color, religion, sex, age, and retaliation by demoting or discharging her
from employment and refusing a shift request. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) However, Ms.
Jackson-Cobb does not assert any specific claims for relief in the complaint and she
fails to provide specific factual allegations that demonstrate Defendant discriminated
against her for any of the reasons she indicates. Although the Title VII Complaint form
allows a party to attach to the complaint a copy of the administrative charge of
discrimination as an alternative to restating the specific claims for relief being asserted,
Ms. Jackson-Cobb has not attached to the com plaint a copy of her administrative
charge of discrimination. Instead, the only document attached to the complaint is a
copy of the administrative determination of the Colorado Civil Rights Division that,
although relevant to the claims Ms. Jackson-Cobb apparently intends to assert, does
2

not provide a short and plain statement of those claims as required under Rule 8.
“[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 [her] conclusory
allegations.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. Therefore, Ms. Jackson-Cobb must file an
amended complaint. Ms. Jackson-Cob must identify the specific claims she is asserting
and the specific facts that support each asserted claim. 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 Ms. Jackson-Cobb file, within thirty (30) days from the date of
this order, an amended complaint that complies with this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Jackson-Cobb shall obtain the appropriate courtapproved Title VII Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Ms. Jackson-Cobb fails within the time allowed to
file an amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed
without further notice.
DATED June 22, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
3

BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

4