Agrawal et al v. Oklahoma Department of Labor et al

Filing 5

ORDER Dismissing without Prejudice 3 Amended Complaint filed by Kris K Agrawal, Energy Production Services LLC, General Minerals Corporation. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within twenty-one days of this Order as set forth herein. If Plaintiff fails to fully comply with this Order, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 03/29/2016. (jb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KRIS K. AGRAWAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MELISSA M. HOUSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-3-D

ORDER
Plaintiff Kris Agrawal, appearing pro se and putatively on behalf of several
entities, has filed a 107-page Amended Complaint that brings a host of allegations
against numerous defendants, including Gov. Mary Fallin, Oklahoma County District
Judge Barbara Swinton, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma
Department of Labor, as well as the United States Department of Interior. The
Amended Complaint, as written, fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) for the
reasons stated below.
Under Rule 8(a), 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Though complaints drafted by pro se litigants are given more
leeway than those drafted by attorneys, they still must be coherent enough to allow for

an intelligent response. Carpenter v. Williams, 86 F.3d 1015, 1016 (10th Cir. 1996).
And although the Court is required to construe Plaintiff’s pleadings liberally, it does
not “assume the role of advocate” and “should dismiss claims which are supported
only by vague and conclusory allegations.” Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518,
1521 (10th Cir. 1992). Although some allowance is made for certain deficiencies, such
as unfamiliarity with pleading requirements, failure to cite appropriate legal authority,
and confusion of legal theories, Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d
836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005), “the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as
the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id. Finally,
the Court “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s
complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico,
113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir.1997) (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991)).
Therefore, dismissal is proper under Rule 8 when a pro se complaint is
unreasonably long, rambling, and otherwise filled with irrelevant material. Mitchell
v. City of Colo. Springs, Colo., 194 F. App’x 497, 498 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished)
(affirming dismissal of complaint for being “verbose, prolix and virtually impossible
to understand” and a “rambling, massive collection of facts . . . completely lacking in
clarity and intelligibility”); Ausherman v. Stump, 643 F.2d 715, 716 (10th Cir.1981)
-2-

(holding that a “prolix” complaint that was a “rambling narration of the discord that
developed between [the parties]” violated Rule 8(a)); see also Firewood v. New
Mexico’s Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Ctr., 583 F. App’x 875, 876 (10th
Cir. Nov. 26, 2014) (unpublished) (“[e]ven though we must construe the pro se brief
liberally . . . we can scarcely identify, much less evaluate, the ‘appellant’s contentions
and the reasons for them.’”).
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is so verbose, disjointed and otherwise
unintelligible that its “true substance, if any, is well disguised.” In re Williams Sec.
Litig., 339 F. Supp. 2d 1242, 1267 (N.D. Okla. 2003) (citations omitted); Franke v.
Midwestern Okla. Dev. Auth., 428 F.Supp. 719, 721 (W.D. Okla. 1976). As noted, the
Complaint consists of 107 pages, many of which contain material that was apparently
cut and pasted from other documents. As a result, the Court will dismiss the Amended
Complaint without prejudice and grant Plaintiff leave to file a second amended
complaint that complies with Rule 8(a). See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148
(10th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of 99-page complaint because “[i]n its sheer
length, [plaintiff] has made her complaint unintelligible ‘by scattering and concealing
in a morass of irrelevancies the few allegations that matter’” (citation omitted));
Schupper v. Edie, 193 F. App’x 744, 746 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (affirming
dismissal of 38-page complaint plus 120 pages of exhibits as “overly long” and
-3-

“prolix”).
Plaintiff Agrawal is reminded that his pro se status does not excuse compliance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this District, or the
Court’s Chambers Rules. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113
(1993)(“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation
should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without
counsel.”). Under the Local Rules, parties who are not natural persons may not appear
pro se. See LCvR 17.1. This prohibition naturally includes the corporate entities
identified as plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint. Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1254
(10th Cir. 2006) (“It has been our long-standing rule that a corporation must be
represented by an attorney to appear in federal court.”) (citations omitted). These
companies must be represented by an attorney in order to proceed as plaintiffs in this
lawsuit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 3]
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff, within twenty-one (21) days
of this Order, shall file an amended complaint which (1) sets forth each allegation and
the relief requested in simple, concise and direct statements, (2) clearly sets forth the
basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, and (3) clearly sets forth all relief sought against
Defendants. An entry of appearance by counsel will also be required for the corporate
-4-

plaintiffs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to fully comply with this
Order, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to
Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2016.

-5-