FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 1, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH PAUL POLA, individually

and as a parent to minor WLP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH; CHURCH OF

JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY

SAINTS; MARK VAN ROSENVELT,

Lt.; ALICIA ZAVALA-LOPEZ;

AMERICA FIRST CREDIT UNION;

AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE;

ANITA MONSON; APOLLO GROUP;

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,

President; BEST BUY; BLAIR

SMITH; BOYD K. PACKER;

BRANDON B. SALTZGIVER;

BRENDAN P. MCCULLAGH;

BRIAN CORPRON; BRIAN DUNN;

BRIAN R. BARNHILL; BROOKE R.

PAGE; CAMIE PRATT; CANDACE

A. GLEED; CARY EVANS; CATHY

MULLINS; CHERYL LAWSON;

CHRISTY CHANDONIA; CINDEE

JENSEN; CINDY CHRISTENSEN;

CONVERGYS; DANNY GIRON;

DARREN MOWER; DAVE

HOENSHELL; DAVID E. YOCOM;

DAVID J. HOLDSWORTH; DEBBIE

L. HANN; DENICE BROWN POLA;

DIRECTV, INC.; DON WALKER;

ERNEST GONZALES; FRED M.

CIVISH; FRED W. POLA; GARY R

HERBERT; GREG GOODMAN;

HEATHER GUNNERSON

MORRISON; INTERMOUNTAIN

No. 11-4040

(D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00095-TC)

(D. Utah)
HEALTH CARE INC.; INGDIRECT;

JAMES H. DEANS; JAMES RUSSO;

JAMES W. WINDER; JAMIE

LOCKE; JANICE BARSON; JEAN D.

ASHLEY; JIM KARPOWITZ; JOE

TATE; JOHN PEARCE; JOHN

SWALLOWS; JON M. HUNTSMAN,

JR.; KARA WESTON; KENNETH

SARDONI; KEITH L. STONEY;

KRISTEN COX; LANE MORRIS;

LARRY THORNE; LEIGH A.

ADAMS-CURD; LEVI LORENC;

MARK FERRARO; MARK L.

SHURTLEFF; MARTY B.

BUSHMAN; MATHEW MOWER;

MELANIE SERASSIO; MICHAEL O.

LEAVITT; MICROSOFT; MIKE

MILLER; MIKE WINDER; MONICA

AUSTIN; MURRY JENSEN;

NORMAN JOHNSON; ARNOLD,

Officer; BLACK, Officer;

CORDOVA, Officer; (FNU)

SANDERS, Officer; FNU SANFORD,

Officer; STOKES, Officer; REGGIE

JOHNSON, Officer; PAM GIRON;

PAT NOLA; PAUL D. ISAAC; PAUL

G. AMANN; PAUL N. BENNER;

PHILLIP D. BECK; QWEST; RANDY

MAURER; RICHARD BAGLEY;

RICHARD CATTEN; RUSSELL N.

CONDIE; RYAN ROBINSON; RYAN

ROCK; SARAH BYRD; SCOTT K.

SORENSON; SCOTT SPRINGER;

STOKES, Sgt.; SHANE MCCAULEY;

M. MACKAY, Sheriff; SHERRIE M.

HAYASHI; SORENSON

COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;

STEPHEN B. WATKINS; STEVE

CRAWFORD; SUZETTE FALKS;

THAYLE NIELSEN; TIMOTHY

-2-
DENNIS; TRACY BOUGHN; TRINA

ORR; VALARIE WASHINGTON;

VERN GREENHALGH; WAYNE T.

PYLE; WEST VALLEY CITY; FNU

WILSON; FNU MOON; AURORA

HOLLEY, ALJ; REGGIE JOHNSON,

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Kenneth Paul Pola, proceeding pro se here as in the district court, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Mr. Pola filed a 145-page single-spaced complaint with 151 exhibits

attached, which the district court found was “incoherent, rambling, and include[d]

everything but the kitchen sink.” R. Vol. 3 at 111. The district court determined

that the complaint did not comply with Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 8, “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief

* After examining the briefs and 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 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. 

-3-
must contain: . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief,” Rule 8(a)(2), and “[e]ach allegation must be simple,

concise, and direct,” Rule 8(d)(1). Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of a complaint

for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” 

This court’s review of the dismissal order is de novo, “accepting as true all

of the well-pled factual allegations and asking whether it is plausible that the

plaintiff[] [is] entitled to relief.” Coll v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 876,

886 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although pro se filings

will be construed liberally, this court “will not supply additional factual

allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a

plaintiff’s behalf.” Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 2009)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]his court has repeatedly insisted that pro

se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Hall v.

Witteman, 584 F.3d 859, 864 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Having reviewed Mr. Pola’s complaint, we agree with the district court that

it fails to comply with Rules 8 and 12. Moreover, his appellate brief consists of

rambling conclusory allegations of wrongs committed by various defendants. His

brief is “wholly inadequate to preserve issues for review” and “do[es] not come

close to complying with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.” Garrett v.

Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Therefore,

-4-
we are unable to determine the issues he is attempting to appeal and will not grant

him relief. 

In addition, Mr. Pola’s attacks on the district judge disentitle him to

review. See id. at 841. In his appellate brief, Mr. Pola has made numerous

allegations (without basis) along the following lines: “The Federal court who has

a history of fraudulent decisions, such as this, to support racketeering, slavery,

and human trafficking/ kidnaping of children and their parents, . . . where they

use technicalities, violations of their own rules, treason, falsifying the rules on the

Utah .gov website, establishment of a national religion, establishment of a state

religion, encouragement of ‘get rid of’ witnesses, evidence, recordings and

support for criminal actions by the LDS church/ State of Utah et, al.” [sic,

generally], Aplt. Br. at 2, and “The judges [sic] statement was treasonous,

criminal, and promoted murder, police brutality, and ignorance for the law.” Id.

at 23. 

This court has the inherent power “to impose order, respect, decorum,

silence, and compliance with lawful mandates.” Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Exercising that inherent power, we strike

Mr. Pola’s abusive and offensive language. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (authorizing

the court to strike any impertinent or scandalous matter). Notwithstanding the

leniency we ordinarily afford pro se litigants, we “will not allow liberal pleading

-5-
rules and pro se practice to be a vehicle for abusive documents.” Garrett,

425 F.3d at 841 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Mr. Pola has filed several motions seeking injunctive relief from this court. 

He has not followed the mandated procedures or made any of the required

showings to obtain a stay from this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a);

10th Cir. R. 8.1, 8.2. Therefore, his motions are denied.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. All pending motions are

DENIED. 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

-6-