* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 17 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

AHMED ABDELSAMED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 01-1009 (D.C. No. 00-B-702) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , ANDERSON , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner seeks review of the district court’s dis missal of his verified complaint and the denial of his motion to file an amended complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review the denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss de novo , applying the same standard as the district court, and accepting the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Benefield v. McDowall , 241 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir. 2001). In this case, the court’s dismissal was spe cifically based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which requires a “short and plain statement” of the court’s jurisdiction and the clai m showing entitlement to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief sought. U nder Rule 12(b)(6), the district court can dismiss a complaint for noncompliance with Rule 8(a)(2)’s short and plain statement requirement if there appears to be no facts on which the plaintiff could state a claim for relief. See Monument Builders of Greater Kan. City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n of Kan., 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989). Dismissal of an action without prejudice for failur e to comply with Rule 8 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kuehl v. FDIC , 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993), as is denial of a motion to amend the complaint. Hom v. Squire , 81 F.3d 969, 973 (10th Cir. 1996). Although a pro se litig ant’s pleadings are entitled to a liberal construction, he must nonetheless follow th e rules of federal and appellate-3-

procedure. Ogden v. San Juan County , 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Moreover, the parties and the court are under no ob ligation to craft legal theories for the plaintiff, nor may they supply factual allegations to support a pro se plaintiff’s claim for relief. See Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Here, the district court carefully recited the prob lems with both the original complaint (“a one hundred fifty-one page prolix of vague allegations and conclusory statements,” R. Doc. 22 at 7) and the pr offered proposed amended complaint (reduced to seventy-six pages but with al most twice the number of claims as in the original, many of which the court found nonsensical, id. at 9.). We have read these documents and agree with the dis trict court’s analysis that they totally fail to “give the defendant fair notic e of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Even liberally construed, both the original and ame nded complaint in this case are incomprehensible. See Carpenter v. Williams , 86 F.3d 1015, 1016 (10th Cir. 1996). It is not the role of either the court or the defendant to sort through a lengthy, conclusory, and poorly drafted complaint i n order to construct a cause of action. See Glenn v. First Nat’l Bank in Grand Junction , 868 F.2d 368, 371-72 (10th Cir. 1989).-4-

Accordingly, and for substantially the reasons stat ed by the district court in its order of December 5, 2000, we hold that the dis trict court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prej udice and in denying the motion to amend because the proposed amendment did not cure the deficiencies in the original. See Bauchman ex rel. Bauchman v. W. High Sch. , 132 F.3d 542, 559 (10th Cir. 1997). Finally, we note that plaintiff is no stranger to a dmonishments about his apparent inability to comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a). In affirming the dismissal of an earlier action of plaintiff’s, we n oted that “[i]ndeed, it would be manifestly unfair to expect [d]efendants to respondreasonably to [p]laintiff’s colossal, often incomprehensible, complaint.” Abdelsamed v. Colorado , No. 00-1470, 2001 WL 289978, at *1 (10th Cir. Mar. 26, 2001) (unpublished decision cited as part of litigant’s court history)

. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge