Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-01017/USCOURTS-ca10-08-01017-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Boulder Police Department
Appellee
Boulder Shelter For The Homeless
Appellee
Denver Health Hospital
Appellee
Denver Police Department
Appellee
William Steven Langmade
Appellant

Document Text:

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 6, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM STEVEN LANGMADE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 08-1017

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT;

BOULDER POLICE DEPARTMENT;

BOULDER SHELTER FOR THE

HOMELESS; DENVER HEALTH

HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellees.

(D.C. No. 07-cv-2287-ZLW-BNB)

(D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

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). The case is, therefore,

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 08-1017 Document: 0101606997 Date Filed: 05/06/2008 Page: 1 
-2-

William Langmade appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and AFFIRM.

The central allegation in Mr. Langmade’s complaint is that he was sexually

assaulted in his sleep while staying at the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless. He

repeatedly claims that a Denver police officer “used his position” to engineer the assault

by rendering him unconscious and enlisting the aid and participation of other public

officials. Mr. Langmade commenced this civil rights action on October 30, 2007, seeking

money damages and a court ordered CAT scan and Cystoscopy. The magistrate judge

found the complaint vague and conclusory, and directed Mr. Langmade to file an

amended complaint that complied with the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He appealed this order, which we dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. Mr. Langmade simultaneously filed an amended complaint in the district

court. After reviewing the complaint, the court found:

Mr. Langmade’s vague and conclusory references to the individuals and

entities he believes committed the alleged sexual assault do not satisfy the

pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In addition, he fails to allege

facts demonstrating that each named Defendant was acting under color of

state law. Merely making vague and conclusory allegations that his rights

have been violated does not entitle a pro se pleader to a day in court,

regardless of how liberally the court construes such pleadings.

. . .

The burden Mr. Langmade places upon Defendants and the Court to

identify, interpret, and respond to his specific claims is unreasonable. In

short, the Court is unable to determine why Mr. Langmade has filed this

action against these Defendants in this Court.

Appellate Case: 08-1017 Document: 0101606997 Date Filed: 05/06/2008 Page: 2 
-3-

Order at 5-6 (citations omitted). The court then dismissed the complaint without

prejudice. 

We review the district court’s decision to dismiss Mr. Langmade’s action without

prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) for an abuse of discretion. See Kuehl v.

FDIC, 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993). We have reviewed the record on appeal and

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this complaint. 

Mr. Langmade’s arguments on appeal essentially repeat the same conclusory allegations

dismissed by the district court, providing no further clarification or indication of their

plausibility. The district court’s dismissal of the complaint is therefore AFFIRMED for

substantially the same reasons stated in the court’s order filed January 9, 2008. Mr.

Langmade’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

Entered for the Court,

Mary Beck Briscoe

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 08-1017 Document: 0101606997 Date Filed: 05/06/2008 Page: 3