* After examining appellant’s brief and the 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) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without o ral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court ge nerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### August 19, 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN ROBERT LEONARD, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JOSEPH R. STANDELL, Esquire, Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Counsel, Defendant-Appellee. No. 05-1145 (D.C. No. 05-Z-76) (Colorado)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , HARTZ , and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
John Robert Leonard, Sr., appeals the district cour t’s dismissal without prejudice of his pro se civil action against Joseph R. Standell and the Fed eral Aviation Administration Aeronautical Counsel. The district court determined that Mr. Leonard’s complaint did not comply with the ple ading requirements of F ED
.-2-

R. C IV
. P. 8(a). We affirm. Rule 8(a) requires, in part, that a plaintiff submi t in his complaint “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . [and] (2) a short and plain statemen t of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 8(a). Rule 8(a)’s “short and plain statement” requirement is “to give opposing p arties fair notice of the basis of the claim against them so that they may respond to the complaint, and to apprise the court of sufficient allegations to allo w it to conclude, if the allegations are proved, that the claimant has a legal right to relief.” Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas , 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989) (quotation omitted). We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8(a) for abuse of discretion. See Kuehl v. FDIC , 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993); Salahuddin v. Cuomo , 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Because Mr. Leonard is proceeding pro se , we construe his complaint liberally.
See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). After Mr. Leonard filed his complaint, the magistra te judge held that: Mr. Leonard has failed to make clear which claims a re asserted pursuant to which statute. See F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 8(a)(1). Mr. Leonard also fails to set forth a short and plain statement of his claims sho wing that he is entitled to relief. See F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 8(a)(2). Rather than summarizing each claim clearly and succinctly, Mr. Leonard makes vague all egations concerning being denied a flight physical. Rec., doc. 9 at 2. The magistrate judge ordered Mr . Leonard to submit an-3-

amended complaint complying with the requirements o f Rule 8(a) and clarifying the claims for relief that he was asserting. In pa rticular, the order instructed that “[e]ach claim must be supported with specific factu al allegations that demonstrate how the particular defendant or defendants violated Mr. Leonard’s rights.” Id. at 3. In response to the magistrate judge’s order, Mr. Le onard filed an amended complaint. The district court found that complaint similarly deficient: Mr. Leonard again makes vague allegations concernin g being denied a flight physical. The amended complaint still does not include a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is en titled to relief in this action. Mr. Leonard still fails to allege, simply and concisely, his specific claims for relief, including the specific rights th at allegedly have been violated and the specific acts of each Defendant th at allegedly violated his rights. He still fails to link the acts that alleg edly violated his civil rights with the statute upon which he bases the alleged vi olation. He still attaches various unexplained exhibits to his amended complai nt. In the supplement to the amended complaint, Mr. Leonard primarily cit es to case law and offers no information to clarify his claims. Rec., doc. 12 at 3. The court concluded the amende d complaint failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order, or with the plea ding requirements of Rule 8(a). We have reviewed Mr. Leonard’s amended complaint an d agree with the district court’s reasoning and conclusion that it d oes not comply with Rule 8(a). It does not provide the named defendants with adequ ate notice of the claims against them, thereby inhibiting their ability to p repare a defense. As a result, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing th e complaint pursuant to Rule1 In support of his in forma pauperis motion, Mr. Leonard submitted a selfstyled “Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition.” Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which will issue only in exceptional circum stances. See United States v. Roberts , 88 F.3d 872, 882 (10th Cir. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1491 (10th Cir. 1997). The petitioner must demonstrate his right t o a writ of mandamus is clear and indisputable. Roberts , 88 F.3d at 882. Mr. Leonard has not made any suc h showing and, as a result, we deny his writ applicat ion. -4- 8(a). The district court also denied Mr. Leonard’s applic ation to proceed in forma pauperis ( ifp ) on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 24, concluding there were no reasoned, nonfrivolous arguments on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. M r. Leonard has filed a motion on appeal for leave to proceed ifp before this court. 1 Having reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, we agree with the district co urt and deny Mr. Leonard’s request to proceed ifp on appeal. See § 1915(a)(3). For the aforementioned reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order and
DENY Mr. Leonard’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

SUBMITTED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge