Swanger v. Beebe

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 25 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MARK SWANGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
vs. No. 98-1242
(D.C. No. 98-605)
FRANK BEEBE; ARTHUR (D. Colo..)
WHITLOCK; STEVEN AMES; RUBY
BRIDGEFORTH; CHARLIE KEEN;
BARBARA CHILES; CLAUDE
PIERRE LOUISE; JOE MARTINES;
TONY KIDD; JOHN MORSE; LINDA
HERNANDEZ; KENT PHILLIPS;
SHIRLEY SEARUGGS; LA RAE
KEMP, M.D.; ETHEL OATMAN,
R.N.; MEL STENCEL; MARSHA
BOYLE; CHAR EHRENSHIFT; DEL
BROWN; DAVID BACHMAN, M.D.;
HILDA STANLEY; UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL;
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO;
U.S.P.O., SPECIFIC AGENCY;
JEFFREY METZNER, M.D. Ph.;
WALTER TORRES, Ph.d.,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.
Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Swanger attempts to appeal from the dismissal of his complaint with
prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The district court
denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
We review a Rule 8(a) dismissal for an abuse of discretion, ordinarily after
time is given to amend a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). See
Mangan v. Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988). With his notice of
appeal, Mr. Swanger apparently attempted to amend the complaint. See R. doc.
49. We have reviewed the district court pleadings as well as Mr. Swanger’s
submissions on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion. See Carpenter v. Williams, 86 F.3d 1015, 1016 (10th Cir. 1996). Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires short and plain statements of claims showing that a
plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint (and attempted amendment) consists
of recounting numerous incidents without sufficient identification of actors and
applicable legal theories. See Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v.
American Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989)
**
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); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
(discussing purpose of complaint).
The motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-