United States District Court, D. Colorado
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge.
matter comes before the Court on the amended Employment
Discrimination Complaint (ECF No. 8) filed pro se by
Plaintiff, Steven Worthman, on February 6, 2019. The matter
has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for recommendation
(ECF No. 19.)
Court must construe the amended Employment Discrimination
Complaint and other papers filed by Mr. Worthman 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
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 Employment
Discrimination Complaint be dismissed.
Worthman initiated this action by filing an Employment
Discrimination Complaint. On January 7, 2019, the Court
ordered Mr. Worthman to file an amended complaint that
complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As noted above, the amended
Employment Discrimination Complaint was filed on February 6,
2019. Mr. Worthman claims in the amended Employment
Discrimination Complaint that he was discriminated against
due to a disability and his religion.
February 8, 2019, the court ordered Mr. Worthman to file a
second amended complaint because the amended Employment
Discrimination Complaint also does not comply with the
pleading requirements of Rule 8. On March 22, 2019, Mr.
Worthman filed a document (ECF No. 16) requesting an
extension of time. On March 27, 2019, the Court entered a
Minute Order (ECF No. 17) granting the request and extending
the time until April 26, 2019, to file a second amended
complaint. Mr. Worthman has not filed a second amended
complaint within the time allowed.
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.
noted in the order directing Mr. Worthman to file a second
amended complaint, the amended Employment Discrimination
Complaint does not include specific factual allegations that
demonstrate he was discriminated against in the terms and
conditions of his employment on the basis of a disability or
his religion. For example, the entirety of Mr. Worthman's
first claim, the disability discrimination claim, is the
I am a member of protected Act, Title VII, the Americans with
Disability Act of 1990. I have had over twenty years of
customer service experience before starting work at Prospect
Airport Services. I have always been a responsible &
loyal employee at all my jobs successfully despite my
(ECF No. 8 at p.4 (some capitalization altered).) Similarly,
the entirety of his second claim, the religious
discrimination claim, is the following:
I have been discriminated against because of my religion
(Catholic); in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. I have had over twenty years of customer service
experience before starting work at Prospect Airport Services.
I have always been a responsible & loyal employee at all
my jobs successfully despite my religious beliefs.
(ECF No. 8. at p.5 (some capitalization altered).) Although
Mr. Worthman indicates in both claims that the claim
continues, there is no continuation of either claim. As a
result, he fails to provide a short and plain statement of
either claim showing he is entitled to relief. The
documentation attached to the amended Employment
Discrimination Complaint also does not include a short and
plain statement of the claims Mr. Worthman is asserting.
Furthermore, despite the specific ...