Bridges v. Anderson et al
Filing
6
ORDER of Dismissal. ORDERED that the amended Complaint 5 and the action are dismissed without prejudice. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. Any pending motions are denied as moot, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/7/13. (sgrim)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00322-BNB
WAYNE D. BRIDGES,
Plaintiff,
v.
I HAVE “LAW SUES” EMBEZZMENT [sic] “WORTH” (ONE BILLION DOLLARS).
THE “LAW SUE” IS A “PENAL” “SUE” FROM THREE STATES (MYRTLE BEACH AND
IDAHO AND DENVER COLORADO).
IS START FROM A “REAL ESTATES” EVICT IN MYRTLE BEACH (BY)
CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON (MANAGEMENT).
HE “FOGEIT” [sic] A DOCUMENT BANK ACCOUNT IN MYRTLE BEACH (MY).
I HAVE PROOF AND EVIDENCE.
(“HE” BEEN “PURSUE ME” FROM THREE STATE “MYRTLE BEACH” “IDAHO,”
“DENVER COLORADO”).
CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON, and
CONGRESSMAN ANDERSON FARM,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Wayne Bridges, filed pro se a Complaint (ECF No. 1) and a Motion and
Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3). On February
8, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order (ECF No. 4) granting Mr.
Bridges leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915 and directing him to file
an amended Complaint that complied with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The February 8 order provides a detailed explanation
as to the Rule 8 deficiencies Mr. Bridges was directed to cure. On March 5, 2013, Mr.
Bridges filed the amended Complaint (ECF No. 5).
The Court must construe the amended Complaint liberally because Mr. Bridges
is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). If the amended complaint
reasonably can be read "to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, [the
Court] should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his
confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his
unfamiliarity with pleading requirements." Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. However, the Court
should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See id. For the reasons set forth below,
the amended Complaint will be dismissed.
Like Mr. Bridges’ original Complaint, the amended Complaint fails to assert the
basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, any claims, and the relief Plaintiff seeks. The only true
parties listed in the caption to the amended Complaint appear to be Congressman
Anderson and Congressman Anderson Farm. The rest of the allegations in the caption
are unintelligible. Any assertions Mr. Bridges does provide in an attachment contained
within the amended Complaint make no sense. See ECF No. 5 at 4-6. Therefore the
amended Complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8,
and must be dismissed.
Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status
will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
(1962). If Mr. Bridges files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $455.00
appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App.
2
P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) and the action are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rules 8 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for the failure of Plaintiff, Wayne D. Bridges, to file an amended Complaint
that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and the directives of the order of
February 8, 2013 (ECF No. 4). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
7th day of
March
, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
