Abdelsamed v. State of Colorado

6 F. App'x 771

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: March 26, 2001
• Docket: 00-1470
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs 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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, originally filed a 282-page complaint. The district court struck the complaint because it failed to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint conforming to rule 8(a). Plaintiff responded by filing a 103-page complaint, which the court again found noncompliant with rule 8(a) and therefore dismissed the suit without prejudice. We review the court’s decision for abuse of discretion. See Kuehl v. F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1034, 114 S.Ct. 1545, 128 L.Ed.2d 196 (1994).

Although pro se litigants’ filings are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam), they are still subject to the federal rules of civil and appellate procedure. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1090, 115 S.Ct. 750, 130 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995). At minimum, rule 8(a) requires a comprehensible, “short and plain” statement of the claim(s) sufficient to give the opposing party reasonable and fair notice of the basis of the complaint. See, e.g., Carpenter v. Williams, 86 F.3d 1015, 1016 (10th Cir.1996); Monument Builders v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 930, 110 S.Ct. 2168, 109 L.Ed.2d 498 (1990). The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Plaintiffs amended complaint failed this minimum standard. Indeed, it would be manifestly unfair to expect Defendants to respond reasonably to Plaintiffs colossal, often incomprehensible, complaint.

Plaintiffs motion on appeal for default judgment is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.