Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
September 1, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
No. 05-1567
District of Colorado
(D.C. No. 05-CV-00650ZLW )
H U ERFA N O CO U N TY , H U ERFANO
C OU N TY CO RR EC TIO N A L
C EN TER ; C OR REC TIO N S
C ORPO RA TIO N O F A M ER IC A; BOB
KURTZ, W arden, CCA/HCCC;
DEBBI M CCORD, Head Cse. M gr.,
C CA /H CC C; A N G ELA M O RELAND,
C ase M gr, C CA /H CC C; PA M
COLBURN, M edical Dir,
CCA/H CCC; C. DAVID NEECE, Dr.,
CCA/HCCC, Contracted Physician;
KATHLEEN M OULDS, CCA/HCCC
Contracted N urse Practicioner;
SH IRLEY SA NCHEZ, Nurse,
C CA /H CC C; PA U L PA CH EC O,
Captain CCA /HC CC; RU BEN
M AESTAS, Librarian, CCA/HCCC;
ED C. GILLISPIE, CDOC Step III
Grievance Officer; STARR
CHAM BERS, Quality Assurance M gr,
C CA /H CC C; A N TH O N Y A.
DECESARO, CDOC, Step III
Grievance Officer; M ICH ELLE
SANTISTEVAN, Head Cse M gr.,
C CA /H CC C; C HR IS C OR DO VA,
Investigator, CCA /HC CC; M ICH AEL
DAV ID, Programs M gr., CCA/HCCC;
LEE FILES, Investigator,
C CA /H CC C; A RLEN E H IC KSON,
Astnt. W arden, CCA/HCCC,
individually and in their
official capacities; H U ER FA N O
CO UN TY, BO AR D O F COU NTY
COM M ISSIONERS; RENNER, Unit
M anager, C CA /H CC C; ELA IN E
TRUJILLO, Trning. M rg.,
CCA/HCCC; JIM W EBBER, CDOC,
HCCC - Private Prison M onitoring
Unit Liason, individually and in their
official capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
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). This case is
therefore 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 This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
-2-
W e affirm. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the
parties make only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). [A]ll
that is necessary is that the claim for relief be stated w ith brevity, conciseness,
and clarity, a standard articulated many times over by federal courts throughout
the country. 5 Charles Alan W right & Arthur R. M iller, Federal Practice and
Procedure 1215, at 165 (3d ed. 2004). This Court has upheld such a standard of
brevity and clarity in pleadings. See Blazer v. Black, 196 F.2d 139, 144 (10th Cir.
1952) ([T]he only permissible pleading is a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief on any legally sustainable
grounds.); Knox v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, 196 F.2d 112, 117 (10th Cir. 1952)
(The purpose of [Rule 8] is to eliminate prolixity in pleading and to achieve
brevity, simplicity, and clarity.). A Rule 8 pleading is not the proper place for
the plaintiff to plead all of the evidence or to fully argue the claims. Swierkiewicz
v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-513 (2002).
In addition to being short and concise, a pleading must be specific enough
to give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the ground
upon which it rests. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). W e admit that it
is not the easiest balancing for the pro se litigant both to be brief and to provide
(...continued)
controversy.
-4-
-5-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRM ED and the appeal is DISM ISSED. Appellants motion to
proceed in form a pauperis is also DENIED.
Entered for the Court,
M ichael W . M cConnell
Circuit Judge
-6-