Smith v. Bush

Filing 7

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 9/17/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01735-GPG
LEONARD R. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, Former President of the United States of America, and
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, in Office of Presidency, Present Perfect at the Office of
the President of the United States Whitehouse,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Leonard R. Smith, has filed pro se a Complaint (ECF No. 1). The court
must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Smith 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. Smith will be ordered to file an
amended complaint if he wishes to pursue any claims in this action.
The Complaint 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 statement 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. Smith fails to provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court’s jurisdiction.
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. Smith’s reference to “109 th Congress, S. 3929 & All related” (ECF No. 1 at
2) does not comply with Rule 8 because he fails to identify the specific statutory
authority that allows the court to consider the claims he is asserting in this action.
Although it is clear that Mr. Smith seeks $2,000,000,000.00 as relief, he fails to
provide a short and plain statement of any claims showing he is entitled to such relief.
It is not clear why Mr. Smith has filed this action against the President of the United

2

States and a former President of the United States, or why he believes his rights have
been violated. In short, the Complaint makes no sense.
In order to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 Mr. Smith must
present his claims clearly and concisely in a format that allows the court and
Defendants to know what claims are being asserted and to be able to respond to those
claims. Thus, Mr. Smith must identify 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, 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); see also United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d
955, 956 (7 th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”).
“It is sufficient, and indeed all that is permissible, if the complaint concisely states facts
upon which relief can be granted upon any legally sustainable basis.” New Home
Appliance Ctr., Inc. v. Thompson, 250 F.2d 881, 883 (10 th Cir. 1957). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Smith 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. Smith shall obtain the appropriate court3

approved Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Smith fails within the time allowed to file an
amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED September 17, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

4