Williams v. L Walters Fht Fht III III

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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

On October 5, 1990, plaintiffs filed a forty-six page complaint against over fifty defendants which alleges "numerous violations of Civil and Criminal Laws," constituting "[p]atterns of Racketeering Activity, ... other statutes," and "numerous violations of the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act." R.Vol. I, tab 1 at 2. Plaintiff, Paul Williams, appeared pro se.

Citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), on its own motion the district court ordered Plaintiffs' complaint and cause of action dismissed without prejudice.1 R.Vol. I, tab 2 at 1. Plaintiff, Paul Williams, appeals this order.

We review the sufficiency of a complaint de novo. Morgan v. City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir.1986). In doing so, "we apply the same scrutiny to the complaint as did the trial court" (id. 978 (citing Boise City Farmers Co-op v. Palmer, 780 F.2d 860 (10th Cir.1985)) and, therefore, "accept all the factual allegations as true and ... draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Tri-Crown, Inc. v. American Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 908 F.2d 578, 582 (10th Cir.1990) (citation omitted); accord Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir.1990) (citing Zinermon v. Burch, 110 S.Ct. 975, 979 (1990); National Commodity & Barter Ass'n v. Gibbs, 886 F.2d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir.1989)).

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading "shall contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." This is because "[t]he 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 proved, that the claimant has a legal right to relief.' " Monument Builders v. American Cemetery Ass'n, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 2168 (1990) (quoting in part Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corp., 631 F.2d 1369, 1371 (10th Cir.1979)); see also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (The complaint should "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.").

We have read the complaint carefully. Even applying a less stringent standard to plaintiffs' pro se complaint than we would to a complaint drafted by a lawyer (Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir.1988),) and construing it liberally "to effectuate the spirit of the liberal rules of pleading," (Morgan v. City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d at 978,) the complaint does not give the defendants fair notice of the bases of the claims against them. Furthermore, the court cannot say that plaintiffs' many allegations, if true, form a legal right to relief. In sum, we agree with the district court's assessment that:

plaintiffs' prolix, rambling, and unintelligible Complaint, ... [is] not ... [a] "short and plain statement." ... [E]ven reading the voluminous statements in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the allegations fail to show that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought.

R.Vol. I., tab 2 at 1.

Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing, without prejudice, plaintiff's complaint and cause of action for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.