Whitehead v. Shafer ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                 FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    October 7, 2008
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                   Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    WILLIAM C. WHITEHEAD; SAM E.
    TAYLOR,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    No. 08-6112
    v.                                                   (D. Ct. No. CIV-07-1031-W)
    (W.D. Okla.)
    ED SHAFER, in his official capacity as
    Secretary of Agriculture; CHARLES
    HAGGERTY; JOHN VAN METER; JOHN
    DOE, individuals; JOHN DOE, as
    employee agents of the United States of
    America acting through the Farm Services
    Administration,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
    case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
    persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    The plaintiffs-appellants William C. Whitehead and Sam E. Taylor, both
    proceeding pro se, filed this action in September 2007 against the defendant-appellee Ed
    Shafer, in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, as well as defendants-appellees
    Charles Haggerty, John Van Meter and John Doe, individually and in their official
    capacities as employees and agents of the Farm Services Administration. On April 29,
    2008, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for failing to comply with Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The court also stated that dismissal was warranted because the
    complaint did not state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In addition, the district
    court found that the plaintiffs had not properly served Mr. Haggerty and dismissed him
    from the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of
    appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and because we conclude that the
    district court properly dismissed the complaint under Rule 8(a), we AFFIRM.
    I. DISCUSSION
    Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are entitled to a liberal construction, the
    litigant is still required to follow the rules of civil procedure. See Ogden v. San Juan
    County, 
    32 F.3d 452
    , 455 (10th Cir. 1994). This Court will not craft legal theories or
    construct factual allegations to support a pro se litigant’s complaint. See Hall v. Bellmon,
    
    935 F.2d 1106
    , 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); Glenn v. First Nat’l Bank in Grand Junction, 
    868 F.2d 368
    , 371–72 (10th Cir. 1989).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint
    under Rule 8(a)(2). See Moser v. Oklahoma, 118 Fed. Appx. 378, 381 (10th Cir. 2004)
    -2-
    (unpublished) (setting forth standard of review). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint “must
    contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled
    to relief.” “The purpose of a modern complaint is to give opposing parties fair notice of
    the basis of the claim against them so that they may respond to the complaint, and to
    apprise the court of sufficient allegations to allow it to conclude, if the allegations are
    true, that the claimant has a legal right to relief.” Monument Builders of Greater Kansas
    City, Inc., v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas, 
    891 F.2d 1473
    , 1480 (10th Cir. 1989)
    (quotations omitted). Accordingly, a district court may dismiss a pro se complaint when,
    even liberally construed, it “is incomprehensible.” See Carpenter v. Williams, 
    86 F.3d 1015
    , 1016 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Moser, 118 Fed. Appx. at 380–81 (affirming
    dismissal under Rule 8(a) where the complaint was vague and incomprehensible to the
    point that the defendants could not discern the claims or prepare a defense).
    The district court acted well within its discretion in this case. The complaint
    recites an array of statutory and common-law causes of action with little, if any,
    connection to the factual allegations. Indeed, the factual allegations themselves are
    sufficiently confusing and disjointed so as to render the legal claims incomprehensible.
    The defendants maintain that as a result they are unable to meaningfully assess and assert
    applicable defenses. We agree. Because even a liberal reading of the plaintiffs’
    complaint does not bring it within the ambit of Rule 8(a)(2), the district court properly
    dismissed the action.
    In their brief on appeal, the plaintiffs raise a host of issues that are generally
    -3-
    related to the plaintiffs’ extensive litigation against these defendants but do not appear to
    arise from the district court’s dismissal under Rule 8(a)(2) of the plaintiffs’ most recent
    complaint. Thus, we do not address them in this appeal. To the extent that the plaintiffs’
    claims are properly before this Court, such as their assertion that the district court should
    have granted their April 3, 2008 “Motion To Compel the Defendant ‘Show Cause’—That
    It Has Not Schemed To Inject Fraud into This Court’s Proceedings Held To Dispose of
    Hazardous Environmental Waste 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(B),” we agree with the district
    court that this motion and all other motions became moot upon the dismissal of the
    plaintiffs’ complaint. Finally, although the plaintiffs assert at the beginning of their brief
    that the district court judge should recuse himself, they set forth no facts or legal
    argument to support this claim.
    II. CONCLUSION
    The district court’s dismissal of this action is AFFIRMED.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
    Deanell Reece Tacha
    Circuit Judge
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6112

Judges: Tacha, Kelly, McConnell

Filed Date: 10/7/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024