*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicataand collateral 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 

### DEC 19 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY SHAWN JEYS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. ENERGY WEST MINING COMPANY; TIFFANY R. LEONE; LESLIE M. DIMITMAN; KAREN L. KOREVAAR; JILL M. POHLMAN; PAMELA L. JACKLIN; JAMES A. HOLTKAMP; MARY JANE BERG; JAIME M. SANDERS; WAYNE JENSEN; CHERI HUNSINGER; BARBARA PROCARIONE; JOAN COOK; CARBON CREDIT UNION; TRESSIE R. JONES; PAUL JAMES TOSCANO, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-4107 (D.C. No. 97-CV-170) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. Jeys is a pro se litigator who appeals the dism issal of his complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We review de novo a district court's dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim and "upho ld a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle him to rel ief, accepting the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true." Yoder v. Honeywell, Inc. , 104 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 55 (1997). As the district court's ac tion was correct, we affirm.
Mr. Jeys' complaint violates every known rule of pl eading. We attach a copy of pages 2 and 3 of this complaint, which prov ide a chart listing the "acts of negligence and injury" of which he complains. The complaint then sets forth, as to each of the numerous defendants, the following: Without due process of the law, Without equal prote ction of the law, Without a warrant (U.S. Const. Amend. IV), plaintif f was injured pursuant to: Knowledge of the law (43 U.S.C. § 198 6), discovery of the law (Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(e)), constructive fraud/condition of the mind (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 (b)), Neglect (42 U.S.C . § 1986) to protect plaintiff's peace, dignity, constitutional and civil rights, and the following acts of negligence and injury from th e above chart [here Mr. Jeys sets forth various numbers from his chart shown in the-3-

attachment] By Defendant ...." Defendants thereupon filed a written motion to dism iss the complaint for failure to state a claim and the district court ent ered its order sustaining these motions. We attach a copy of the district court's order.
Mr. Jeys appeals this order. Mr. Jeys' first asserts he was not allowed "to conduct proper discovery and to conduct a hearing r egarding respondent's claim." He argues "Pursuant to the 'Whole Truth Disclosure Doctrine' petitioner is entitle[d] to full disclosure." He next argues the trial court "knew that by dismissing the petitioner's case, petitioner's right to due process would be violated[,] ... [t]hereby causing the petitioner fu rther injury."
Mr. Jeys' arguments are not persuasive. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Mr. Jeys i gnores his obligation to set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing he is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Giving Mr. Jeys' complaint the benefit of a liberal construction, as we must, the complaint still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it does not set forth any facts in support of its legal conclusions. Additionally, Mr. Jeys is not entitle d to discovery without first making a proper showing he is entitled to discovery
.-4-

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons as set forth therein.
Some of the Appellees have requested damages and do uble costs as a sanction for a frivolous appeal. We deny these req uests; however, Mr. Jeys is advised that any further such pleadings may well re sult in sanctions being imposed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge