Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Collins v. Fairbairn

United States District Court, D. Colorado

April 25, 2019



          Gordon P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on the Amended Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 19)[1] filed pro se by Plaintiff, David Lee Collins, on April 4, 2019. The matter has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for recommendation (ECF No. 24.)[2]

         The Court must construe the Amended Prisoner Complaint and other papers filed by Mr. Collins liberally because he is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.

         The Court has reviewed the filings to date. The Court has considered the entire case file, the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. This Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the Amended Prisoner Complaint be dismissed.

         I. DISCUSSION

         Mr. Collins initiated this action by filing pro se a document titled “Court Bond” (ECF No. 1). In response to an order directing Mr. Collins to cure deficiencies, he filed a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 10) purportedly asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 15, 2019, the Court ordered Mr. Collins to file an amended complaint that clarifies his claims. As noted above, the Amended Prisoner Complaint was filed on April 4, 2019.

         The Amended Prisoner Complaint does not provide a clear statement of the claims Mr. Collins is asserting and does not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The twin purposes of a pleading are to give the opposing parties fair notice of the basis for the claims against them so that they may respond and to allow the Court to conclude that the allegations, if proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass'n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989); see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that a complaint “must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”).

         The requirements of Rule 8 are designed to meet these purposes. See TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F.Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991), aff'd, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992). Specifically, Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Furthermore, the philosophy of Rule 8(a) is reinforced by Rule 8(d)(1), which provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules. As a result, prolix, vague, or unintelligible pleadings violate the requirements of Rule 8.

         The Court determined the original Prisoner Complaint was confusing and difficult to understand because Mr. Collins failed to allege specific facts in support of his claims that demonstrate he is entitled to relief and he failed to provide a clear statement of the relief he is seeking in this action. Mr. Collins makes little, if any, effort in the Amended Prisoner Complaint to correct these pleading deficiencies. Although Mr. Collins indicates he is asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it still is not clear what specific claims for relief he is asserting or the specific federal right allegedly violated in each claim, the specific factual allegations that support each asserted claim, against which Defendant or Defendants each claim is being asserted, what each Defendant did that allegedly violated Mr. Collins' rights, or the relief he is seeking. For example, the entirety of claim one, which is captioned “The Inaccurate Appearance Bond 2003 and it's [sic] harm, ” is the following:

The Bonding Agent, Dennis Blackwell dba DENNIS BLACKWELL BAIL BOND at 2960 E. LAS VEGAS, Colorado Springs, CO 80906 on 25-7-03 with a Power of Attorney # R5-11944142, did cause my Appearance Bond 2003 to become inaccurate by the insertion of fake information under color of law, pursuant to the use of some other person's Social Security Number being xxx-xx-2329. This error became willfull [sic] and knowing error due to the fact that for the past 15 years to get this error corrected there was NO ATTEMPT to correct.
As a result of the errors, the fake information was transferred to all of the Records, Bonds, Motion for Transportation, Transport Document(s), and the Commercial Set for payment for the transport, still must have my true and correct SSN and they continued to use the wrong SSN.
The same error did show it's [sic] self pursuant to the Motion for Attachment Without Bonding such Attachment and the filing of said Garnishment all using the wrong SSN.
All Records have been corrupted by the Wrong SSN and ALL Penal Bond(s) must be called ALL other Bond(s) must be called.
C.R.E. 901, requires accurate Indentification [sic] in accordance to Me. The used SSN xxx-xx-2329 identifys [sic] some other person's IDENTIFICATION, so why am I falsely imprisoned? What ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.