Wilkins v. Thomas, 10th Cir. (2004)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsWilkins v. Thomas, 10th Cir. (2004)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsF I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
MAY 25 2004
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOYCE WILKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES THOMAS and CHIEF
GERALD WHITMAN,
No. 03-1468
(D. Colorado)
(D.C. No. 03-WM-1317 (PAC))
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, HENRY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. **
Joyce Wilkins appeals the district courts dismissal without prejudice of her
pro se civil action against Denver Assistant City Attorney James Thomas and
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 10 TH C IR . R. 36.3.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously to decide this case on the briefs without oral argument.
See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2).
**
Denver Police Chief Gerald Whitman. The district court ruled that Ms. Wilkins
complaint failed to comply with F ED . R. C IV . P. 8(a). We conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ms. Wilkins complaint.
See Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340 & n.1 (10th Cir. 1994) (reviewing a
district courts dismissal for failure to comply with a prior order for an abuse of
discretion).
Ms. Wilkins complaint alleges that Mr. Thomas and Chief Whitman failed
to respond appropriately to her complaints about her neighbors. She states that
the defendants acted under the color of law, Aples App. at 5, but she fails to
identify either the legal basis for her claims or the relief that she seeks.
Under F ED . R. C IV . P. 8(a), Ms. Wilkins complaint must contain (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the courts jurisdiction
depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she is]
entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief [she] seeks.
Although we construe Ms. Wilkins pro se pleadings liberally, they must comply
with the applicable procedural rules, including F ED . R. C IV . P. 8. See Ogden v.
San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994).
Ms. Wilkins complaint does not comply with F ED . R. C IV . P. 8(a). Her
general allegations that Mr. Thomas and Chief Whitman did not respond
appropriately to her concerns do not provide these defendants with adequate
-2-
notice of the claims asserted against them, and they do not allow the district court
or this court to evaluate the legal grounds for her causes of action. See Perington
Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corp., 631 F.2d 1369, 1371 (10th Cir. 1979)
(observing that the essential function of a complaint under modern pleading 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).
Moreover, the district court afforded Ms. Wilkins an opportunity to amend
the complaint to comply with F ED . R. C IV . P. 8(a). After the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, the court issued an order explaining the requirements of Rule
8(a) and requiring Ms. Wilkins to file an amended complaint. See Aples App. at
73-76 (Dist. Ct. Order, filed Sept. 15, 2003). In response to this order, Ms.
Wilkins submitted a one-page letter that did not cure the deficiencies noted by the
district court. See id. at 83 (letter from Ms. Wilkins stating that I have been
ignored by Chief Whitman and James Thomas but failing to explain the legal
basis for her claims against them).
-3-
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing her
complaint without prejudice, and we therefore AFFIRM its decision.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-
