*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

(continued...)

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 27 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LEONARD STEVE WESTFALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT;

COLORADO STATE

COMPENSATION INSURANCE

AUTHORITY; COLORADO

DIVISION OF LABOR; COLORADO

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

HEARINGS; COLORADO STATE

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE,

Colorado Attorney General’s Office ex

rel; GILPIN COUNTY DISTRICT

COURT; JEFFERSON COUNTY

DISTRICT COURT; GILPIN

COUNTY; SUMMIT COUNTY;

GARFIELD COUNTY; GARY

SANDBLOM, P.C.; JAQUELINE

SANDBLOM, N.P.; CHARLES

EWING, Blackjack Towing; and

GILPIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 01-1538

(D. C. No. 01-ES-1971)

(D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
*

(...continued)

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

- 2 -

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in 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.

Plaintiff Westfall appeals from an order of the district court dismissing

without prejudice his complaints and a further order of the district court denying a

motion to reconsider that dismissal. Plaintiff appeals pro se alleging bias on the

part of the district court. He further alleges that the district court took various

actions that, according to plaintiff, were either mistaken or fraudulent.

We construe the filings in this court liberally, as we are required to do

under the standards of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The

district court also construed the pleadings in that court liberally. Plaintiff filed

pro se two complaints in the district court. The magistrate judge ordered the

clerk of court to begin a civil action and ordered plaintiff to cure several

enumerated deficiencies within thirty days if he wished to pursue his claims. 
- 3 -

Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies and instead filed a notice of appeal from

what was clearly a non-final action in the district court. After further

requirements that plaintiff file an amended complaint that would comply with the

pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr.

Westfall again failed to comply. The district court therefore dismissed the

complaints and the action in the district court without prejudice for failure to

prosecute.

We find that there was no error in the determinations of the district court.

Plaintiff clearly has not met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) in the filing

of his complaints in the district court. We therefore affirm the order of the

district court for substantially the reasons given by the magistrate judge and the

district court. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs

or fees is granted. AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge