Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01090/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uflited States Cm~rt (?f Appeals 

Tenth Cir:u1t 

ALJG 1 . 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ROBERT J. O'CONNELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; 

U.S. MARSHALS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1090 

(D.C. No. 87-K-1432) 

(Dist. of Colo.) 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MCWILLIAMS, and BARRETT, Circuit 

Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Robert O'Connell appeals from the district court's grant of 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) and United States 

Marshals Service's motion to dismiss. 

O'Connell filed a complaint, a copy of which is attached 

hereto, in the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado, naming the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service as 

* This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1090 Document: 01019975705 Date Filed: 08/14/1989 Page: 1 
defendants. Based on that complaint, the defendants moved to 

dismiss. The court directed O'Connell to respond to the motion. 

O'Connell thereafter filed a non-responsive document entitled 

Motion to Continue. The district court dismissed the complaint 

because "it flagrantly violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.'' The court observed that the complaint did not 

contain an allegation of jurisdictional basis or a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader was entitled to 

relief, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The court also 

found that "[i)n any event, if plaintiff's case is in tort, this 

court has no jurisdiction to hear claims against agencies of the 

United States, 28 u.s.c. §§ 1346(b) and 2679. If the complaint is 

based on constitutional torts, there has been no waiver of 

immunity." (Order of the District Court). 

We review de novo the sufficiency of a complaint in the 

context of the grant of a motion to dismiss. N.L.R.B. v. 

Weathercraft Company of Topeka, Inc., 832 F.2d 1229 (10th Cir. 

1981); Morgan v. City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain statement 

of the claim 'that will give the defendant fair notice of what the 

plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."' 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). A plaintiff must plead 

"sufficient facts concerning time, place, actors, or conduct to 

enable defendants to respond." Pike v. City of Mission, Kansas, 

731 Fed. 2d 655, 661 (10th Cir. 1984); Mountain View Pharmacy v. 

Abbot Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1386-88 (10th Cir. 1980). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1090 Document: 01019975705 Date Filed: 08/14/1989 Page: 2 
Having reviewed O'Connell's complaint, we share the district 

court's frustration as evidenced by its observation that "the 

factual background to and basis for the suit remains a matter for 

the conjecture of the court." (Order of the District Court). We 

agree and hold that the district court did not err in dismissing, 

without prejudice, O'Connell's complaint for blatant failure to 

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

The district court also found that (1) if O'Connell's case 

sounded in tort, the court has no jurisdiction to hear claims 

against agencies of the United States, 28 u.s.c. §§ 1346(b) and 

2679, and (2) if the case was one of constitutional tort, there 

was no waiver of sovereign immunity. We agree. 

We AFFIRM substantially for the reasons set forth in the 

district court Order of January 9, 1989, which is attached hereto. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1090 Document: 01019975705 Date Filed: 08/14/1989 Page: 3 
.. "I 

... ; . -. " ~ I • -.,, •, ' 

. . : . . r-·; ;~ l~5=, . ..! 

0 7 SEP 2t! A 9 : I 7 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~:~·- .. ' · .. -: ,;-: 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

ROBERT J. O'CONNELL, 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

U.S. MARSHALLS 

Defendant. 

C O M P L A I N T 

G Y_,__ _ ___ L LP. CU<. 

I am suing the F.B.I. and U.S. Marshalls because I was interrogated 

on February 8, 1984, at the Denver Yellow Cab Comoany because I said the wrong 

thing in this Court Clerk's office. 

I was interrogated without an attorney and no Miranda warning was 

given by F.B.I. Agent John Huyler or U.S. Marshall Weidenhorn. I wa...; arrested 

and taken to the Denver General Hospital. They would not let me call an attorney 

until after midnight when it was too late. 

The next day I was taken via ambulance to Boulder Psychiatric Institute, 

kept there all day, then finally, I was allowed to call the Metro Lawyer Referral 

Service. Their secretary told me they should have already gotten me an attorney. 

That night, February 9, 1984, I was taken to Fort Logan, where I was 

certified before I had a chance to talk with an attorney. 

Appellate Case: 88-1090 Document: 01019975705 Date Filed: 08/14/1989 Page: 4 
COMPLAINT - 2 

At the Boulder District Court trial, on March 1, 1984, Agent Huyler's 

testimony was partially false and inflammatory. Also, I believe all the witnesses 

committed perjury because I complained about being under investigation by the 

F.B.I. and they did not believe my 83-C-776 lawsuit in Judge Carrigan's court. 

I state this because in November 1985, when I was in Panama City, Florida, the 

surveillance thing started all over again and a man in the Federal Building in 

Tallahassee did say, "How can they prosecute him, they all lied!!" A couple at 

the Pizza Boy Restaurant in Panama City said the same thing. I believe I was 

harassed in Florida by the F.B.I. Documents were stolen when I was staying at 

the Bay Villa Motel in February 1986. People remarked all over again, "The 

Government is trying to accuse him of perjury. 11 I cannot see why they would, 

since I never testified and they did testify, and I believe they all did lie under 

oath to Judge Sandstead in Boulder, Colorado. 

My request for Two Million Dollars in reparation is for the severe 

mental damage I have suffered while incarcerated in Fort Logan for 90 days, 

false testimony presented, forcing me to take medications that caused biological 

damage, an incompetent and stupid investigation for perjury when they knew they 

could have requested a Master's and Johnson medical experiment to determine my 

sexual preference. 

My civil rights have been violated by an incompetent F.B.I. Agent, 

John Huyler, and by badgering U.S. Marshall Weidenhorn. I was interrogated with 

no Miranda warning, no attorney present, and certified before I had a chance to 

talk with an attorney. For these reasons I request monetary relief by this 

Honorable Court. I would like a jury trial. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/2J uuf j) 0 / t?tr'-"~t 

Robert O'Connell 

4500 19th Street, #46 

Boulder, CO 80302 

Appellate Case: 88-1090 Document: 01019975705 Date Filed: 08/14/1989 Page: 5 
I ~ ~' t ') 1':R~ 

IN THE UNITED S'rATE!S DIS~CT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 87-K-1432 

ROBERT J. O'CONNELL, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

1: f f. E D L ; ,; i C:: ~ , ,\ 1 rs L /Sli" ·..:.T c:t.:r: T 

I •,. 0 . l . ---, 

..._ _! . : ·-l I:::) 

~' · :.::s n. r ::.:::P~.,': ::::r -~~~~ EY _____ _____ ___ _________ _____ _ 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and THE UNITED STATES MARSHALLS 

SERVICE, 

Defendants 

ORDER 

KANE J., 

Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff's complaint is two pages long. It flagrantly 

violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There 

is no jurisdictional basis alleged for the suit, the factual 

backround to and basis for the suit remains a matter for the 

conjecture of the court, and the 'short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief' 

required by Rule 8(a) is absent. Plaintiff has further failed to 

respond in any coherent fashion to the arguments raised in the 

government's motion. 

In any event, if 

no jurisdiction to 

States, 28 U.S.C. §§ 

constitutional torts, 

plaintiff's case is in tort, this court has 

hear claims against agencies of the United 

1346(b), 2679. If the complaint is based on 

there has been no waiver of immunity. 

This case is dismissed. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado this ct ~day ENTERED 

ON THE DOCKET 

I'. >' -·, """ •::-:o • ,, , . ~ ,_,. ·'J 

JAMES R,vNSPEAKER _ ERK l!IV 

of January, 1988. 

Appellate Case: 88-1090 Document: 01019975705 Date Filed: 08/14/1989 Page: 6