Filed: Jul. 25, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS July 25, 2006 FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court SANFORD B. SCHUPPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 05-1156 (D.C. No. 04-M K-351 (CBS)) W ILLIA M ED IE; R OB YN CA FASSO; (D . Colo.) JEA N N E SM ITH ; D A V ID ZO OK; LINDA DIX, in their individual and official capacities; A N N K AU FM AN, Defendants-Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before HA RTZ, A ND ER SO N, and TYM KOVICH, Circu
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS July 25, 2006 FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court SANFORD B. SCHUPPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 05-1156 (D.C. No. 04-M K-351 (CBS)) W ILLIA M ED IE; R OB YN CA FASSO; (D . Colo.) JEA N N E SM ITH ; D A V ID ZO OK; LINDA DIX, in their individual and official capacities; A N N K AU FM AN, Defendants-Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before HA RTZ, A ND ER SO N, and TYM KOVICH, Circui..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
July 25, 2006
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
SANFORD B. SCHUPPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 05-1156
(D.C. No. 04-M K-351 (CBS))
W ILLIA M ED IE; R OB YN CA FASSO; (D . Colo.)
JEA N N E SM ITH ; D A V ID ZO OK;
LINDA DIX, in their individual and
official capacities; A N N K AU FM AN,
Defendants-Appellees.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before HA RTZ, A ND ER SO N, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Sanford B. Schupper, proceeding pro se on appeal as he did in the district
court, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action. W e have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM .
*
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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. 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.
I.
M r. Schupper initiated his district court lawsuit with a 38-page complaint
containing 292 paragraphs, plus 120 pages of exhibits. The magistrate judge
struck the complaint for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), particularly Rule 8(a)(2)’s
requirement of “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” The court gave M r. Schupper until July 12, 2004, and then
until O ctober 4, to file an amended complaint that complied with Rule 8(a).
Three days after the deadline, on October 7, M r. Schupper filed a motion for a
further extension of time to file his amended complaint. On December 16, he
tendered an amended complaint that the district court received but did not file.
The magistrate judge found that M r. Schupper had not established
excusable neglect for failing timely to file either his amended complaint or a
request for another extension. He recommended that M r. Schupper’s motion for
further time be denied. The district court accepted the recommendation and
granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action because M r. Schupper had failed
to file an amended complaint within the deadline. The court then denied M r.
Schupper’s motion for reconsideration. M r. Schupper appeals both the dismissal
of his action and the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
-2-
II.
A.
M r. Schupper first argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
original complaint. W e review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under
Rule 8(a) for abuse of discretion. See Kuehl v. FDIC, 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir.
1993). “W hen review ing for an abuse of discretion, the district court’s decision is
overturned only if it is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly
unreasonable.” Pac. Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City,
414 F.3d 1221, 1231 (10th
Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).
Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are entitled to a liberal construction,
he must follow the rules of federal procedure. Ogden v. San Juan County,
32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The policy behind Rule 8 is to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.” Leatherm an v. Tarrant County N arcotics Intelligence and Coord. Unit,
507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993) (quotation omitted).
Having reviewed M r. Schupper’s original complaint, we cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion in striking it. The complaint does not give the
defendants fair notice of M r. Schupper’s claims. As the magistrate judge noted, it
“is overly long, prolix, vague, confusing and sometimes unintelligible.” R. Doc.
103 at 7. It is not the role of either the court or the defendant to sort through a
lengthy, poorly drafted complaint and voluminous exhibits in order to construct
-3-
plaintiff’s causes of action. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991); Glenn v. First Nat’l Bank,
868 F.2d 368, 371-72 (10th Cir. 1989); see also
5 Charles Alan W right & Arthur R. M iller, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 1281, at 709 (3d ed. 2004).
B.
M r. Schupper also challenges the district court’s refusal to grant him any
further extensions to file an amended complaint. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2),
where a party moves after a deadline for an extension of time to do some required
act, the district court may grant the extension by finding “the failure to act was
the result of excusable neglect.” W e also review this decision for abuse of
discretion. See Quigley v. Rosenthal, 427 F.3d 1232, 1237 (10th Cir. 2005).
In determining whether a movant has shown excusable neglect, courts
consider the circumstances, including “the danger of prejudice to the [opposing
party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the
reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the
movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (stating factors in context of
“excusable neglect” test of Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)); Panis v. M ission Hills
Bank, N.A.,
60 F.3d 1486, 1494 (10th Cir.1995) (applying Pioneer definition in
Rule 6(b) context).
-4-
The district court considered each of the applicable factors and concluded
that M r. Schupper had failed to show excusable neglect for filing his amended
complaint or at least filing his motion for further time prior to his October 4
deadline. For the same reasons given by the district court, we conclude that the
district court’s finding of no “excusable neglect” was not an abuse of discretion.
C.
Next, M r. Schupper argues that the district court erred in dismissing the
action. Essentially, the court dismissed the action because M r. Schupper had
failed to comply with its order to file an amended complaint in a timely manner,
leaving nothing to adjudicate. A district court may dismiss an action for failure
to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This court also review s
such dismissals for abuse of discretion. See Mobley v. M cCormick, 40 F.3d 337,
340 (10th Cir. 1994).
A court generally should consider certain criteria before dismissing a
complaint under Rule 41(b), including “(1) the degree of actual prejudice to the
defendant; (2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; (3) the
culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the court warned the party in advance that
dismissal of the action would be a likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the
efficacy of lesser sanctions.” Id. (quotations and alteration omitted). The district
court briefly discussed the first three factors in connection with the motion for
additional time (the same order in which it dismissed the action), stating,
-5-
“[a]lthough there is little danger of prejudice to Defendants, the Plaintiff has
delayed filing his Amended Complaint by more than five months from the July 12
deadline–and more than two months from the October 4 deadline–and the fault for
such delay lies with him.” R. Doc. 156 at 8.
W e have upheld an order of dismissal even where the district court did not
explicitly consider each factor on the record. See Archibeque v. Atchison, Topeka
and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 70 F.3d 1172, 1175 (10th Cir. 1995). Here, the district
court did consider the majority of the requisite factors, and its decision is
supported by the record. W e find no abuse of discretion.
D.
Finally, M r. Schupper contends the court erred in denying his motion for
reconsideration. As with the other issues in this appeal, we review for abuse of
discretion. See Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997).
M r. Schupper’s motion essentially reiterated his arguments as to excusable
neglect in greater detail and with further explanation. For the same reasons that
the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action, the court also did
not abuse its discretion in denying M r. Schupper’s motion for reconsideration.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M . Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-6-
