Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Flute v. United States, 10th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views3 pages
    This document is a court order summarizing a case in which Gary Flute filed a complaint regarding being transferred between prisons with little notice, resulting in lost personal property and wages. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims determined it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to a district court in Colorado. That court dismissed Flute's original and amended complaints for failing to clearly explain the defendants' actions, harm caused, and legal rights violated, as required by Rule 8. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing the complaints did not meet the burden to allege sufficient facts to support a recognized legal claim.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-02-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1316

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court order summarizing a case in which Gary Flute filed a complaint regarding being transferred between prisons with little notice, resulting in lost personal property and wages. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims determined it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to a district court in Colorado. That court dismissed Flute's original and amended complaints for failing to clearly explain the defendants' actions, harm caused, and legal rights violated, as required by Rule 8. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing the complaints did not meet the burden to allege sufficient facts to support a recognized legal claim.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    17 views3 pages

    Flute v. United States, 10th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order summarizing a case in which Gary Flute filed a complaint regarding being transferred between prisons with little notice, resulting in lost personal property and wages. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims determined it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to a district court in Colorado. That court dismissed Flute's original and amended complaints for failing to clearly explain the defendants' actions, harm caused, and legal rights violated, as required by Rule 8. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing the complaints did not meet the burden to allege sufficient facts to support a recognized legal claim.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    February 20, 2015


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
    TENTH CIRCUIT

    Clerk of Court

    GARY FLUTE, SR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    No. 14-1316
    (D.C. No. 1:14-CV-01269-LTB)
    (D. Colo.)

    Defendant - Appellee.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

    Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and the 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 ordered
    submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff Gary Flute, a federal prisoner representing himself pro se, filed a
    complaint in the Federal Court of Claims alleging that certain employees of the Bureau
    of Prisons transferred Plaintiff from a prison in Illinois to a prison in Colorado with only
    four hours of notice, which thereby triggered the effective loss of personal property

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
    persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

    and wages. (R. at 17.) The Court of Claims concluded it lacked jurisdiction to
    adjudicate Plaintiffs claim, and it transferred the complaint to the District of Colorado.
    The Colorado district court instructed Plaintiff to file his complaint on the courts current
    form. Plaintiff obtained the correct form and filed a prisoner complaint identifying three
    claims apparently based on the prison transfer: deprivation of rights by and through
    conspiracy against rights, obstruction of justiceagency proceedings, and theft by
    deception/larceny. (R. at 31-33 (capitalization omitted).)
    A magistrate judge reviewed the complaint and concluded it failed to satisfy Rule
    8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because, among other things, it failed to
    explain (1) what a defendant did to [Plaintiff]; (2) when the defendant did it; (3) how the
    defendants action harmed him; and (4) what specific legal right the defendant violated.
    (R. at 55 (citing Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th
    Cir. 2007)).) The magistrate judge also concluded that the complaint fail[ed] to assert
    specifically the matter [Plaintiff] is challenging under the Federal Tort Claims Act
    (FTCA) claim. (R. at 55.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint that
    addressed these deficiencies.
    Although Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the district court concluded the
    complaint failed to comply with the magistrate judges directives and contained the same
    deficiencies as the original complaint. The court accordingly dismissed the complaint
    without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8 and with the magistrate judges order.
    We review the district courts dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint for abuse of
    -2-

    discretion. Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1161. After thoroughly reviewing Plaintiffs brief and
    the record on appeal, we are not persuaded the district court abused its discretion in
    dismissing the complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8. Although
    Plaintiffs pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, he still bears the burden of
    alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based. Hall v.
    Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Given the confusing and conclusory
    nature of Plaintiffs original and amended complaints, we see no error in the district
    courts conclusion that Plaintiff failed to meet this burden.
    Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons given by the magistrate judge and
    district court, we AFFIRM the district courts dismissal of this case. We GRANT
    Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal but remind him he is obligated
    to continue making partial payments until the entire filing fee has been paid in full.
    Entered for the Court

    Monroe G. McKay
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like