FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
September 13, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JOHN MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-1204
v. (D. Colorado)
STATE OF COLORADO, (D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00426-ZLW)
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES; RUTH
TRUMPFHELLER,
Defendants - Appellees.
____________________
JOHN MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 10-1213
DR. SAM JAHANI; DR. STEVE (D. Colorado)
PADUA; DELTA COUNTY
HOSPITAL; INSURANCE (D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00425-ZLW)
COMPANYS [sic] FOR THE
DEFENDANTS,
Defendants - Appellees.
___________________
JOHN MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 10-1222
DELTA COUNTY HOSPITAL; (D. Colorado)
STEVE PADUA; DR. SAM JAHANI;
TOM MINGEN, Hospital (D.C. No. 1:10-CV-01018-ZLW)
Administrator; COPIC INSURANCE
COMPANY; THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS; BILL HELLMAN;
JOHN MUSSER; JOHN
BREITNAUER; THEIMA STARNER;
DORY FUNK,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
We consolidate these three appeals filed by John Moore.
In 10-1204 and 10-1213, Mr. Moore appeals dismissals without prejudice
by the district court. In both cases the court held that his complaint failed to
satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Those holdings were clearly
correct. Even liberally construing Mr. Moore’s pro se complaints, it is impossible
to determine the basis of the federal court’s jurisdiction or the basis of a colorable
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 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. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-2-
cause of action. We therefore AFFIRM the judgments below and the denials of
Mr. Moore’s postjudgment motions.
In 10-1222, Mr. Moore filed a similarly defective complaint. But before
the complaint could be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8, Mr. Moore
wrote a letter to the magistrate judge stating in its entirety: “I what [sic] this case
to be dismiss # case 10CV01018 [the district-court case number].” R. at 9. The
district court properly construed the letter as a motion to dismiss and granted
dismissal without prejudice. On appeal Mr. Moore states his two issues as “I
what a hearing” and “it is not right.” Aplt. Br. at 3. We AFFIRM the judgment
below.
We DENY Mr. Moore’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-3-