Plaintiff Appeals Court's Rule 8(a) Dismissal

party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court appeals from the district court's dismissal of her complaint for 1 & johannes, llc; and mariner as the district court found, bailot cannot bring a claim under 18 u.s.c. § 1622, plaintiff-appellant, no. 10-1102 entered for the court by lawyers." erickson v. pardus, 551 u.s. 89, 94 (2007). however, "we do not pauperis on appeal is denied. she is required to immediately make full v. (d. of colo.) v. mapes, 333 f.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th cir. 2003). basis for dismissal: rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a district court to dismiss this order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the 2 action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, assistance in the determination of this appeal. see fed. r. app. p. 34(a); 10th clerk of court fdcpa, the district court concluded the complaint still failed to set forth a short july 8, 2010 record, we find this conclusion was not an abuse of discretion. the complaint did tbt enterprises inc. panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material "we review dismissals under rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion." nasious, bailot's complaint. furthermore, bailot's motion for leave to proceed in forma notably, all three potential sources of authority to dismiss the suit--rule timothy m. tymkovich doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. it may be cited, discretion in making these findings. an action for failing to comply with any aspect of the federal rules of civil cir. r. 34.1(g). the cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (d.c. no. 1:10-cv-00174-zlw) before hartz, anderson, and tymkovich, circuit judges.** united states court of appeals procedure." nasious v. two unknown b.i.c.e. agents, at arapahoe county comply with the federal rules of civil procedure. merryfield v. jordan, 584 although the district court did not make explicit the source of its authority which relief may be granted." 28 u.s.c. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii). f.3d 1140, 1148 (10th cir. 2007). bailot's complaint failed in that regard. 2 legal conclusions were not an abuse of discretion. * however, for its persuasive value consistent with fed. r. app. p. 32.1 and 10th filed health central, inc. in care of to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's orders." olsen the court also could have dismissed the case pursuant to 28 u.s.c. "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to important purpose of requiring plaintiffs to state their claims intelligibly so as to which is a criminal statute, and she completely failed to explain her fourteenth payment of her appellate filing fees. little to connect the facts alleged with any cause of action, nor did it indicate how united states court of appeals -2- order and judgment* 41(b), 28 u.s.c. § 1915, and rule 12(b)(6)--rely on the same standard: whether circuit judge stated it was based on "civil rights and employment," and her amended could have been seeking jurisdiction under title vii for employment motion. reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues after examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge appeal. our jurisdiction arises under 28 u.s.c. § 1291. relief," fed. r. civ. p. 8(a)(2), and accordingly dismissed the complaint without upon which relief can be granted, under rule 12(b)(6). the district court did not bailot permission to proceed in forma pauperis, and therefore was required to f.3d 923, 924 n.1 (10th cir. 2009). inform the defendants of the legal claims being asserted." mann v. boatright, 477 defendants-appellees. rules of civil procedure.2 ** assume the role of advocate," and pro se status does not excuse a failure to failure to comply with the requirements of rule 8(a) of the federal rules of civil and plain statement of the claims for relief. after careful examination of the kat bailot1 to dismiss bailot's suit, it presumably did so under rule 41(b) of the federal procedure. the district court concluded her amended complaint failed to include complaint stated it was based on "federal congress 18 usc 1622; 14th (...continued) prejudice. the court also denied bailot's request to proceed in forma pauperis on cir. r. 32.1. interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure 492 f.3d at 1161. this deferential standard of review is especially appropriate § 1915, which governs proceedings in forma pauperis. the district court granted statement showing relief was warranted. the district court did not abuse its "[t]o be sure, a failure to satisfy rule 8 can supply a not taken in good faith."). the district court in this case certified that the appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is justice center, 492 f.3d 1158, 1161 (10th cir. 2007). although the text of rule tenth circuit when, as here, the case is dismissed without prejudice. id. at 1162. tenth circuit dismiss the case if it determined that the complaint "fails to state a claim upon bailot is proceeding pro se, and therefore we construe her pleadings liberally, holding them to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted -4- for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint set forth a claim for which she was entitled to relief. 41(b) requires a defendant's motion to dismiss, "the rule has long been discrimination or under the fair debt collection practices act (fdcpa). those elisabeth a. shumaker raised on appeal." debardeleben v. quinlan, 937 f.2d 502, 505 (10th cir. 1991). regarding the statutory authority for jurisdiction, the original complaint the defendants are responsible for the behavior described. "rule 8 serves the the district court found bailot's complaint lacking in at least two respects: kat bailot, -5- we can discern no error in this conclusion. (continued...) bailot requests we allow her to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. "a amendment claims. the district court also determined, however, that bailot -3- faith." fed. r. app. p. 24(a)(3)(a); see also 28 u.s.c. § 1915(a)(3) ("an appeal state of colorado; machol unless . . . the district court . . . certifies that the appeal is not taken in good amendment rights; title vii civil rights act of 1964; fdcpa 15 usc 1692." was not taken in good faith, because bailot failed to show "the existence of a the defendants also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim explicitly rule on that motion; it dismissed the action without mentioning the it insufficiently set out the district court's jurisdiction, and it failed to include a considering the rest of bailot's complaint in light of title vii and the