Smith v. DeVry University, Inc.

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT February 12, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
MATTHEW ALAN SMITH, Clerk of Court
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 13-1447
(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-01840-LTB)
DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC., (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Matthew Smith filed a pro se complaint in the district court against DeVry
University (“DeVry”) for violation of his rights related to his enrollment in a master’s
degree program. The district court dismissed this complaint without prejudice, ordering
Mr. Smith to file a complaint complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8.
Mr. Smith then filed three amended complaints in three consecutive days. The district
court dismissed these complaints without prejudice for failure to satisfy Rule 8. The
* After examining the briefs and 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); 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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.
district court also denied Mr. Smith’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”) in this
appeal. Mr. Smith appeals and renews his request to proceed ifp. Exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s dismissal and deny Mr. Smith’s
request to proceed ifp.
We review the district court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice under
Rule 8(a) for abuse of discretion. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492
F.3d 1158, 1162 n.3 (10th Cir. 2007). 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.” We construe pro se pleadings liberally. See Diversey v. Schmidly, 738 F.3d
1196, 1199 (10th Cir. 2013). But we do not assume the role of advocate and craft
arguments for the pro se litigant. See United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th
Cir. 2009).
Mr. Smith’s amended complaints fail to allege facts to support his claims. In his
attempt to state discrimination claims regarding alleged unfair grading procedures and
failure to accommodate his mental disability in the classroom, Mr. Smith cites federal
statutes without linking them to factual allegations. Having reviewed the amended
complaints and the district court’s dismissal order, we conclude the court did not abuse
its discretion in finding noncompliance with Rule 8.
-2-
We affirm the district court and deny ifp.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-