F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 25 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CHARLIE GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 04-1401
v. (District of Colorado)
(D.C. No. 04-Z-1529)
MESSAMORE KELLY,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court 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.
Charlie Griffin appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 civil rights complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Rule 8(a)
“requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Monument Builders of Greater
Kansas City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass'n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th
Cir.1989) (quotation omitted). The rule requires litigants to draft complaints that
“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.” Id. (quotation omitted). This court reviews for abuse
of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8(a). See
Kuehl v. FDIC, 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d
40, 42 (2d Cir.1988).
After Griffin filed his complaint, the matter was referred to a magistrate
judge for initial proceedings. The magistrate judge ordered Griffin to file an
amended complaint that complied with the provisions of Rule 8(a). The
magistrate concluded that an amended complaint was required because the
original complaint filed by Griffin
fails to set forth a short and plain statement of [Griffin’s] claims
showing that he is entitled to relief. In fact, he does not assert any
specific claims for relief. He merely complains that he has not been
released to a halfway house or on parole prior to the completion of
his prison sentence. It is not clear why [Griffin] is suing the named
Defendant or even who the named Defendant is.
-2-
In response to the magistrate judge’s order, Griffin filed an amended complaint.
As noted by the district court, however, that amended complaint
still fails to assert any specific claims or to clarify who the named
Defendant is and why he is being sued. Although it is apparent that
[Griffin] believes he should have been released at some point either
on parole or to a halfway house, it is not clear why he believes his
constitutional rights have been violated, which of his constitutional
rights have been violated, or who specifically has violated his
constitutional rights.
This court has reviewed Griffin’s amended complaint and agrees with the
district court’s conclusion that it fails to comply with Rule 8(a). The named
defendants could not have discerned the bases of Griffin’s claims or prepared a
defense. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
Griffin’s complaint under Rule 8(a). Likewise, in light of the complete absence
of historical fact from the amended complaint and Griffin’s failure to state why he
believes his constitutional rights have been violated, which of his constitutional
rights have been violated, or who specifically has violated his constitutional
rights, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint
counsel to represent Griffin. Hill v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111,
1115 (10th Cir. 2004) (noting that the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate
that his claims are sufficiently meritorious to warrant appointment of counsel and
that “only in those extreme cases where the lack of counsel results in fundamental
unfairness will the district court’s decision be overturned”).
-3-
Griffin’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
He is reminded that he must continue making partial payments until the appellate
filing fee is paid in full. The United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is hereby AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-