Arndt et al v. Hatfield et al

Filing 51

ORDER: re 1 Complaint, filed by David Arndt. the Court dismisses Plaintiffs Complaint sua sponte for failure to comply with federal pleading requirements. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint that comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 6/2/20. (jw)

Case 5:20-cv-00181-R Document 51 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID ARNDT,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BARBARA HATFIELD, individually, et al. )
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. CV-20-181-R

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff David Arndt’s Complaint. Doc. No. 1. Therein,
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges violations of his civil and constitutional rights, and
asks for monetary damages, temporary injunctive relief and declaratory judgment against
thirty-two defendants, including several state judges and government representatives. Id.
Upon review, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint sua sponte for failure to comply
with federal pleading requirements.
According to his Complaint, Plaintiff reported his wife in or around August 2017
for abusing him and their three children. Soon thereafter, the Department of Human
Services (DHS) removed Plaintiff and the couple’s three children from their home and
opened an investigation. Plaintiff’s wife then filed for divorce. In the divorce proceedings,
the Judge granted joint custody to both parents and Plaintiff was required to pay child
support. Plaintiff failed to pay child support and was subjected to a Title IV-D hearing. He
was held in contempt in the state district court for failing to pay his child support. Plaintiff
1 

Case 5:20-cv-00181-R Document 51 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 3

was later charged with abuse and neglect of his children and a deprived child petition was
filed against him. Among other allegations, Plaintiff contends that the custody decision,
child support orders, contempt orders and the deprived child petition violate his
constitutional and statutory rights.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires plaintiffs to “state their claims
intelligibly so as to inform the defendants of the legal claims being asserted.” Mann v.
Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007). Specifically, Rule 8(a) instructs the
plaintiff to plead for relief in a “short and plain statement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), while Rule
8(d) adds that each allegation in the complaint must be “simple, concise, and direct,” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Rule 8 is violated where a Plaintiff files a complaint which reads “more
as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and
clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs . . . .” See Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148.
“It [is] not the district court’s job to stitch together cognizable claims for relief from [a]
wholly deficient pleading . . . .” Id. Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b)
requires a party to “state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far
as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”
Plaintiff’s Complaint violates each of these federal rules. His Complaint is 189
pages long; it does not contain short and plain statements notifying Defendants of the
claims made against them. Nor does it contain simple, concise, or direct allegations.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is in clear violation of Rule 8. His claims are also not stated in
numbered paragraphs, in violation of Rule 10.

2 

Case 5:20-cv-00181-R Document 51 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 3

For the forgoing reasons, the Court sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc.
No. 1. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint that comports with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June 2020.

3