United States District Court, D. Colorado
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AMENDED PRISONER
P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the Court on the Amended Prisoner
Complaint (ECF No. 19) 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.
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.
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
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,
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.”).
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.
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
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 ...