A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is c a se is ther efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay18,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT PA U L H U G G I N S,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 05- 1466 v. D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado K E V IN C H A R L E S H IL T O N ; L O U IS CH AR L E S DAVI S ; BR I GHT S T AR M I S S I ONAR Y B AP T I S T CH UR CH ,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. ( D . C . N o. 05- C V - 01488)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EYM OU R, a n d M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. Sel f- des cr i bed “Pr ophetE vangel i s tD oct orR ever end” Paul H uggi ns , act i ng pr o s e and on beha l f of a n or gani zat i on cal l ed K i ds A gai ns tA l cohol , D rugs and C r i m e, I nc. ( K A A D A C ) , appea l s fr om t he or derof the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s i ng-2-

h is c o m p la in t fo r fa ilu re to s a tis f yR u le 8 o f

th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re . D es pi t e the l eni entpl eadi ng r equi r ement s of R ul e 8 and ourpr act i ce of l i ber al cons truct i on of compl ai nt s i n favorof pro se l i t i gant s , w e affi r m the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s o rd e r o f

d ism iss a l. I . The C ompl ai nt T he di s tr i ctcourtal l ow ed M r . H uggi ns t o amend hi s compl ai ntaft ert he fi r s tver s i on pr oved uni nt el l i gi bl e. I n hi s amended compl ai nt , M r . H uggi ns s t at es th a t h e u se d to w o rk a s a m in iste r a t th e B rig h t S tar M iss io n a ryB a p tist C h u rc h in D enver( “B r i ghtSt ar ”) , one of the named D efe ndant s i n the ac t i on. H e ei ther i ncorpor at ed orr el ocat ed K A A D A C , hi s dul yr egi s t er ed nonpr ofi tor gani zat i on, at the hea dquart er s of B r i ghtSt ar . T w o pas t or s atB r i ghtSt ar , K evi n C har l es H i l t on and Loui s C har l es D avi s , al l egedl yagr eed t o s erve as boar d m ember s of K A A D A C and ar e al s o named as D efe ndant s . A ts om e poi ntB r i ghtSt aras ked M r . H u g g i n s t o r e m o v e K A A D A C fi l e s f r o m t h e c h u r c h a n d t o tu rn i n h i s k e y, a n d P a s to r D a v is th re a te n e d to c a ll th e p o lic e to h a v e M r. H u g g in s re m o v e d . B ey o n d this rou g h sk etch o f th e se q u en ce o f e v en ts, itis i m p o ssible to d iscern fr om the compl ai ntw hathappene d, w hyt he fe der al court s enj oyj ur i s di ct i on over anycl ai m s , orw hyM r . H uggi ns m i ghtbe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. T h e c o m p lai n t sug g ests that the o ther p asto rs w ron g lyp rev en ted M r. H uggi ns fr om pr eac hi ng atthe chur ch. I tacc us es Pas t orH i l t on of uns peci fi ed

“ u n p ro fe ss io n a l an d im p ro p e r” c o n d u c t, i n c lu d in g a “ [ d ]o m in a tin g p e rfo rm a n c e to-3-

mi s l e a d th e p e o p l e o f t h i s c o u n tr ya n d th e c h i l d r e n wi th i n th e f u tu r e th a twe hol d. ” R . D oc. 3, p. 4–5. T he compl ai ntal s o al l eges thatPas t orD avi s has m i s l ed the chur ch abouthi s s ecr eti dent i tyand pas tcr i m i nal hi s t or y , and thathe s o m e h o w tr ic k e d M r. H u g g in s in to p a y in g a $ 6 1 0 .4 7 T -M o b il c e ll p h o n e b ill. T her e ar e addi t i onal document s at t ache d t o the compl ai ntr el at ed t o a $75. 00 c h a rg e — o r p e rh a p s a $ 7 5 .0 0 d o n a tio n ?

— c o n c e rn in g a C ri c k e t c e ll p h o n e . U n d e r th e h e a d in g “ Ju risd ictio n ,” th e c o m p lain t sta tes th a t “[ t]h is compl ai nti s bas ed on vi ol at i on r el i gi on purpos es [s i c] , and s el f- di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tnon- pr ofi tcorpor at i ons ” i n vi ol at i on of “the fi r s tand s econd a m endment ri g h ts” an d the righ t “[t]o p eti ti o n the G o v ern m en t fo r red ress o f g ri ev an ce ’s [s i c] . ” Id. at3. I tt hen l aunche s i nt o a di s cus s i on of the fa ct s . U nderthe hea di ng “R E Q U E ST FO R R E L I E F, ” a c har i t abl e r eadi ng of the l anguage s ugges t s four d e m a n d s: (1 ) th a t B rig h t S tar a n d its p a sto rs “ p ro v id e in w ritten sta tem e n ts to thes es [s i c] al l egat i ons t hatar e bei ng al l eged, ” perhaps s i m pl ybyans w er i ng the compl ai nt ; ( 2) t hathe r ece i ve “a n apol ogyl et t erand t o corr ectal l out s t andi ng [s i c] thatthe part i es have t aken a ct i on on oragai ns t , ” s ugges t i ng s om e form of i njunct i ve rel i ef; (3) t hat he r ecei ve “the am ou nt that I M i nis t er Paul H ug gins, h a d c o n trib u ted f

u n d s fo r m ym o n th lyties fo r M in istry ,” w h ich p e rh a p s s h o u ld s ay“t i thes ” buti n anycas e i s a demand forr es t i tut i on orm oneydamages ; and ( 4) thatthe compl ai nts houl d pr om pt“an i nves t i gat i on of Fr aud comm i t t ed by A s s i s t antPas t orknow [s i c] as A . K . A . L ew i s D avi s , ” al though i ti s uncl ear-4-

w h e th e r t h e c h u rc h o r s o m e o th e r a u th o ri ty w o u ld c o n d u c t th e in v e s tig a tio n . Id. at13–14. T h e d istric t co u rt, af

ter a ffo rd in g M r. H u g g in s a n o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d h is compl ai nt , hel d that“i ts t i l l i s notcl earw hyPl ai nt i ff i s s ui ng the named D efen d an ts i n this C o u rtin this ac ti o n . ” O rde r & Ju d g m en t of D ism issal 3. I t th e re fo re d ism iss e d th e a c tio n w ith o u t p reju d ice fo r fa ilu re to c o m p lyw ith R u le 8( a) . O n appea l , M r . H uggi ns r ei t er at es thathi s compl ai nts t at es a cl ai m for “V i ol at i ona [s i c] of the Fi r s tA m endmentR i ght s , the s econde [s i c] , A m endment Ri g h t[ s i c ] , a n d th e F o u t e e th [ s i c ] Am e n d me n t s . ” Ap l t . Op . Br . 2 . He charact eri zes one of the i ssues i n the case as “a cr i m i nal actof Iden t i tyT heft case [ s ic ],” p re s u m a b ly b yP a s to r D a v is . Id. at3. H e al s o as s ur es us thathe has al r eadycont act ed the Supr eme C our tconce rni ng hi s appea l , and thathe has d ilig e n tly c o m p lie d w ith S u p re m e C o u rt ru le s in p re p a ri n g h is p le a d in g s . I I . D i s cus s i on In a n yp lead ing that sets fo rth a c lai m fo r reli ef, a p artym u st pro v ide “ (1) a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the gr ounds upon w hi ch the court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on depends . . . ( 2) a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the cl ai m s how i ng thatt he pl eade r i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef, and ( 3) a demand forj udgm entfort he r el i ef the pl eade r s eeks . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( a) . T hes e r equi r ement s ens ur e thatt he compl ai nt

“‘ gi ve[s ] the defendantfai rnot i ce of w hatt he pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m i s and the gr ounds upon w hi ch i tr es t s . ’ ” Swi e rk i e wi czv . So r e ma N. A. , 534 U . S. 506, 512 ( 2002)-5-

( quot i ng C onl ey v . G i bs on , 355 U . S. 41, 47 ( 1957) ) . T he Supr eme C our thas n o ted th at un d er the fe d era l ru les, li b era l disco v eryp roc ed u res a n d su m m ary j udgm enthel p “t o defi ne di s put ed fa ct s and i s s ues and t o di s pos e of u n m e rito rio u s c laim s,” w h ile th e “ sim p lifie d n o tice p lea d in g sta n d a rd ” m e re ly r epr es ent s t he fi r s ts t ep i n a s y s t em “adopt ed t o focus l i t i gat i on on the mer i t s of a cl ai m . ” Id. at512–14. I n addi t i on, “[a ] pr o s e l i t i gant ’ s pl eadi ngs ar e t o be cons trued l i ber al l yand hel d t o a l es s s tr i ngents t andar d than form al pl eadi ngs dr aft ed byl aw y er s . ” Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 ( 1 0 th C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) . We re v ie w a d is m is s a l fo r fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith R u le 8 (a ) fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S e e Sa la h u dd i n v . Cu o mo , 8 6 1 F . 2 d 4 0 , 4 2 (2d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). In th is case , d esp it e o u r be st effo rt s to m ak e se n se o f th e c o m p lai n t, M r. H ug gins has fai l ed to provide a shortand plai n st at em ent of anycl ai m s agai nst th e D e fe n d a n ts, a n d fa iled to d e m o n stra te th a t th e fe d e ra l co u rts m a yp ro p e rly exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overanycl ai m s . T he onl yfede r al l aw s ci t ed byM r . H uggi ns ar e the Fi r s t , Second, and Four t eenth A m endment s , w hi ch mi ghthave s erved as th e b a s is fo r fe d e ra l q u e s tio n ju ri s d ic tio n , s ee 28 U . S. C . § 1331 ( gr ant i ng fede r al co u rt s jurisdicti o n o v er c ase s arisi n g u n d er the C o n sti tuti o n o f th e U n it ed S tat es), i f theyw er e notobvi ous l yi nappl i cabl e. T hes e cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons pr ovi de pr ot ect i on foract s comm i t t ed bygovernm entorper s ons act i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw . T he defendant s her e ar e pr i vat e per s ons , and ther e i s no al l egat i on of a n ya c t o r c o n sp ira c yin v o lv in g sta te o r fe d e ra l o fficia ls. T h e c o m p lain t als o fa ils-6-

t o al l ege fact s gi vi ng r i s e t o di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on, as the part i es al l appea rt o be c itiz e n s o f

C o lo ra d o a n d th e a m o u n t in c o n tr o v e rs yis a p p ro x im a te ly $ 6 8 5 .4 7 . See i d. § 1 3 3 2 (a) (gra n ti n g fe d era l cou rt s jurisdicti o n o v er c ivil ac ti o n s “w h ere the mat t eri n contr over s yexce eds the s um orval ue of $75, 000” and i s betw een cit izen s o f d iffe ren t st ates). F o r th e se re a so n s, th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d is m is s in g M r. H u g g in s ’s a c tio n fo r fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith R u le 8 (a ). T he j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s tr i ctof C olor ado i s AFF I RM ED . A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris is DENI ED and this case i s DI S M I S S ED . E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge