HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV3112 - Sean Slatton V. Fort Collins Police Department, Todd Hopkins, Brandon Barnes And John Hutto - 005 - Order To Show CauseIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 18-cv-03112-RBJ-STV
SEAN SLATTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TODD HOPKINS,
BRANDON BARNES,
JOHN HUTTO, and
FORT COLLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
______________________________________________________________________
Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak
This civil action is before the Court sua sponte upon the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint. [#1] Although Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, utilized the Court’s approved
general civil complaint form, Plaintiff failed to complete Section D (“Statement of
Claim(s)”), Section E (“Request for Relief”), and Section F (“Plaintiff’s Signature”). [#1 at
4-6]
In conducting its review of the Complaint, the Court is mindful that Plaintiff is
proceeding without the assistance of an attorney. “A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be
construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). “The Haines rule applies to all proceedings involving a pro
se litigant.” Id. at 1110 n.3. The Court, however, cannot be a pro se litigant’s advocate.
Case 1:18-cv-03112-RBJ-STV Document 5 Filed 12/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2
See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Moreover, pro se parties
must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Nielsen v. Price, 17
F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir.
1992)).
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11(a), which requires that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other
paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a
party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Rule 11(a) further provides that “[t]he court
must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being
called to the attorney's or party's attention.” Plaintiff’s Complaint thus is deficient pursuant
to Rule 11(a), because Plaintiff did not sign the Complaint. [See #1 at 6]
In addition, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Pursuant to Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim,” demonstrating that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and “a demand
for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)-(3). Here, Plaintiff failed to comply with either
of these requirements, because he failed to complete (and left entirely blank) the sections
of the form complaint designated for (1) clearly and concisely setting forth his claims and
(2) identifying the relief sought. [#1 at 4-6]
“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.” Mwangi
v. Norman, No. 16-cv-0002-GPG, 2016 WL 153220, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2016).
Accordingly, to state a claim in federal court, Plaintiff’s Complaint must explain: (1) “what
Case 1:18-cv-03112-RBJ-STV Document 5 Filed 12/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3
each defendant did to him”; (2) “when the defendant did it”; (3) “how the defendant’s action
harmed” the plaintiff; and, (3) “what specific legal right the plaintiff believes [each]
defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163
(10th Cir. 2007). In its current form, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with any of these
requirements.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before January 11, 2019, Plaintiff shall:
(1) File an Amended Complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the requirements discussed in this Order; or
(2) Show cause, if any there be, in writing, why the current Complaint [#1]
should not be stricken pursuant to Rule 11(a) and/or dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to the requirements of Rule 8.
Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely comply with this Order will result
in a recommendation of dismissal of this action. The Court further advises Plaintiff
that he may qualify for assistance from the Colorado Bar Association Federal Pro Se
Clinic, information available at http://www.cobar.org/cofederalproseclinic or by calling
303.380.8786.
DATED: December 11, 2018 BY THE COURT:
s/Scott T. Varholak
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:18-cv-03112-RBJ-STV Document 5 Filed 12/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3