* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 10 TH C IR . R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to decide this case on the b riefs without oral argument. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2). 

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

### MAY 25 2004 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOYCE WILKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. JAMES THOMAS and CHIEF GERALD WHITMAN,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 03-1468 (D. Colorado) (D.C. No. 03-WM-1317 (PAC))

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , HENRY , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. **
Joyce Wilkins appeals the district court’s dismissa l without prejudice of her pro se civil action against Denver Assistant City A ttorney James Thomas and-2-

Denver Police Chief Gerald Whitman. The district c ourt ruled that Ms. Wilkins’ complaint failed to comply with F ED . R. C IV . P. 8(a). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dism issing Ms. Wilkins’ complaint. See Mobley v. McCormick , 40 F.3d 337, 340 & n.1 (10th Cir. 1994) (reviewin g a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply wi th a prior order for an abuse of discretion). Ms. Wilkins’ complaint alleges that Mr. Thomas and Chief Whitman failed to respond appropriately to her complaints about he r neighbors. She states that the defendants acted “under the color of law,” Aple ’s App. at 5, but she fails to identify either the legal basis for her claims or t he relief that she seeks. Under F ED . R. C IV . P. 8(a), Ms. Wilkins’ complaint must contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she is] entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment f or the relief [she] seeks.” Although we construe Ms. Wilkins’ pro se pleadings liberally, they must comply with the applicable procedural rules, including F ED . R. C IV . P. 8. See Ogden v. San Juan County , 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Ms. Wilkins’ complaint does not comply with F ED . R. C IV . P. 8(a). Her general allegations that Mr. Thomas and Chief Whitm an did not respond appropriately to her concerns do not provide these defendants with adequate-3-

notice of the claims asserted against them, and the y do not allow the district court or this court to evaluate the legal grounds for her causes of action. See Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corp. , 631 F.2d 1369, 1371 (10th Cir. 1979) (observing that “the essential function of a compla int under modern pleading is . . . to give opposing parties fair notice of the basis of the claim against them so that they may respond to the complaint, and to apprise t he court of sufficient allegations to allow it to conclude, if the allegat ions are proved, that the claimant has a legal right to relief”). Moreover, the district court afforded Ms. Wilkins a n opportunity to amend the complaint to comply with F ED . R. C IV . P. 8(a). After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the court issued an order explai ning the requirements of Rule 8(a) and requiring Ms. Wilkins to file an amended c omplaint. See Aple’s App. at 73-76 (Dist. Ct. Order, filed Sept. 15, 2003). In response to this order, Ms. Wilkins submitted a one-page letter that did not cu re the deficiencies noted by the district court. See id. at 83 (letter from Ms. Wilkins stating that “I hav e been ignored by Chief Whitman and James Thomas” but fail ing to explain the legal basis for her claims against them).-4-

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its d iscretion in dismissing her complaint without prejudice, and we therefore AFFIR M its decision.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge