Bowles v. United States ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 28 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CARL C. BOWLES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
Nos. 00-1278
v. 00-1322
(D.C. No. 00-Z-277)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and (Colorado)
R. E. HOLT, Warden,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, EBEL, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Carl Bowles, a federal prisoner incarcerated since 1965, brought a pro se
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued imprisonment on
several grounds. After Mr. Bowles filed an amended petition, a federal
magistrate judge ruled that it failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and
*
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the
terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
directed Mr. Bowles to file a second amended petition setting out a short, plain
statement of each claim showing that he is entitled to relief. Mr. Bowles then
filed a second amended petition, which the district court dismissed sua sponte
without seeking a response from defendants. The complaint was dismissed
without prejudice. The court ruled that one claim appeared to attack the validity
of his federal conviction and sentence in California and must therefore be brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district where sentence was imposed. The
court dismissed the remaining three claims for failure to comply with Rule 8,
pointing out that they were not supported by specific factual allegations, but were
instead either vague and conclusory allegations or references to other documents
whose relevance was not explained. Mr. Bowles appeals, and we affirm in part
and reverse in part.
As the district judge recognized,
[a] pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and
held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. We believe that this rule means that if the court can
reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the
plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff’s failure
to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories,
his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with
pleading requirements. At the same time, we do not believe it is the
proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate
for the pro se litigant.
Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). In the fourth claim of Mr.
Bowles’ second amended petition, he alleges that respondents have illegally
-2-
restrained him past his mandatory parole date by classifying him as having a
mental problem such that he would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to
others, have illegally ordered a mental health examination for him without due
process, and have failed to comply with the due process requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 4247. See rec., vol. I, doc. 15 at 8. In other material before the district
court, Mr. Bowles alleges that 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246-47 and federal regulations
establish procedures applicable in these circumstances which respondents did not
follow. See id. doc. 16 (memorandum in support of motion for mental health
examination) & exs. 1 & 3.
Although we of course express no opinion on the merits of these
allegations, liberally construed they allege the denial of liberty without due
process and therefore satisfy Rule 8 when viewed under the liberal pleading
standards applied to pro se litigants. Accordingly we reverse the dismissal of this
claim and remand for further proceedings. 1 We agree with the district court’s
disposition of Mr. Bowles’ other three claims and therefore affirm their dismissal
without prejudice.
1
We grant Mr. Bowles’ application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
-3-
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further
proceedings.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Chief Judge
-4-