FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 3, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
RON GATEWOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-1037
v. (D.C. No. 1:12-CV-03118-LTB)
VETERANS AFFAIRS; PSL/et-all; (D. Colo.)
VETERAN AFFAIRS; VA
HOSPITAL ENROLLMENT ADM.;
DR. BRIAN REISS; DEPT OF
LABOR AND EMPLMENT (sic);
DR. ROBERT KAWASSAKI; HOLLY
HEALTHCARE SYS.; CCIA
INSURANCE; PENNICOL
INSURANCE; WORKERS COMP.;
PSL/HOSPITAL; HOLLY HEALTH
OCCP; KAISER PERMANETE (sic);
DR. COUILLE; DR. J. TASH
BERTON; DR. LOEFFER; DR. ED
BAKER; DR. GRABOWSKI,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, and ANDERSON and TYMKOVICH, Circuit
Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. 32.1.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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.
Ron Gatewood, proceeding pro se, appeals an order dismissing his amended
complaint. After Mr. Gatewood filed his initial complaint, Magistrate Judge
Boland entered an order finding that his complaint was unintelligible and failed to
meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Mr. Gatewood was directed to file
an amended complaint that set forth a short and plain statement of his claims
showing that he is entitled to relief, that identified the proper basis of jurisdiction
for his claims, and that named proper defendants. The court’s order provided
Mr. Gatewood with clear and specific guidance and authorities to enable him to
amend his complaint appropriately.
Despite these directives, Mr. Gatewood’s amended complaint was no more
coherent than his first one. The court accordingly dismissed his action and denied
Mr. Gatewood in forma pauperis status on appeal, having determined that any
appeal from the court’s order would not be taken in good faith.
After paying the full filing fee, Mr. Gatewood has appealed the district
court’s dismissal. Unfortunately, his appellate brief is equally incomprehensible.
Because the district court explained to Mr. Gatewood what a proper pleading
should contain, we do not reiterate those requirements.
-2-
We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of this matter.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-