FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 27, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RON GATEWOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 17-1438
(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-02337-LTB)
PENNICOL; BENTON, Dr.; (D. Colo.)
CUVILLE, Dr.; KAWASSAKI, Dr.;
REISS, Dr.; LOEFFER, Dr.;
BAKER, Dr.; GRABOWSKI, Dr.,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This appeal grew out of the district court’s summary dismissal of a
pro se complaint. We affirm.
A magistrate judge determined that the complaint was unintelligible,
failed to identify a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, and violated
*
The parties do not request oral argument, and it would not materially
help us to decide this appeal. As a result, we decide the appeal based on
the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
federal pleading requirements. With these determinations, the magistrate
judge explained that the complaint must be dismissed in the absence of
subject-matter jurisdiction and told Mr. Gatewood what the statutory
requirements were for jurisdiction. The magistrate judge also explained
that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 required Mr. Gatewood to provide
a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction,
a simple, concise explanation of his claims and why he is
entitled to relief, and
a statement about what he wanted the court to award.
With this explanation, the magistrate judge directed Mr. Gatewood to
obtain a copy of the court-approved pro se complaint form and use it to file
an amended complaint in compliance with Rule 8, cautioning that a failure
to timely comply could result in dismissal of the action without further
notice.
Mr. Gatewood responded by filing two unintelligible amended
complaints. One was on the court’s approved pro se complaint form; the
other was not.
The district judge reviewed both complaints and concluded that Mr.
Gatewood had failed to articulate a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction or
to comply with Rule 8. Thus, the district judge dismissed the action
without prejudice.
2
Mr. Gatewood appeals, but his opening brief is unintelligible. His
statement of the case is “Denied. Estoppel Fed Circuit Mandate Joint –
Remand.” Appellant’s Br. at 2 (capitalization omitted). His statement of
the facts is “Judgement Award for plaintiff joint remand in short. [I]n acts
Title VII discrimination Judicial Acts. Fed App. pro-se chain command.”
Id. (capitalization omitted). His first issue is “Pennicol Insurance. VA-
CAVE – file relief.” Id. at 3. His second issue is “VA-GOV-Comp.” Id.
The action requested is “Take action in off claim. workers comp. send to
Pennicol SET SSA. For process.” Id. at 4.
“A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held
to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall
v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But we “cannot take on
the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing
arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux &
Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Here we cannot make sense of
Mr. Gatewood’s appellate brief.
As the magistrate judge and district judge explained, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court’s jurisdiction” and a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and
provide “simple, concise, and direct” factual allegations.
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)–(2), (d)(1). The amended complaints did not comply
with these requirements, which permitted the district court to order
dismissal. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 946 (7th
Cir. 2013) (“Where the lack of organization and basic coherence renders a
complaint too confusing to determine the facts that constitute the alleged
wrongful conduct, dismissal is an appropriate remedy.” (bracket and
internal quotation marks omitted)). 1
Though the action was properly dismissed, we grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis because Mr. Gatewood cannot afford to prepay the filing
fee and we have no reason to question his good faith. See 28 U.S.C.
1915(a)(1), (3).
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
1
We note that we have previously affirmed the dismissal of
unintelligible complaints filed by Mr. Gatewood. See Gatewood v. VA
GOV. Comp., 711 F. App’x 485 (10th Cir. 2018) (affirming the dismissal
of unintelligible complaint); Gatewood v. Veterans Affairs, 514 F. App’x
755 (10th Cir. 2013) (same).
4