* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral 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 judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions 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. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Westfall appeals from an order of the dis trict court dismissing without prejudice his complaints and a further orde r of the district court denying a motion to reconsider that dismissal. Plaintiff app eals 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 m istaken 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 thatcourt liberally. Plaintiff filed
pro se two complaints in the district court. The magistr ate judge ordered the clerk of court to begin a civil action and ordered plaintiff to cure several enumerated deficiencies within thirty days if he wi shed to pursue his claims.- 3 -

Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies and inste ad filed a notice of appeal from what was clearly a non-final action in the districtcourt. After further requirements that plaintiff file an amended complai nt 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 cour t therefore dismissed the complaints and the action in the district court wit hout prejudice for failure to prosecute. We find that there was no error in the determinatio ns of the district court. Plaintiff clearly has not met the requirements of F ed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) in the filing of his complaints in the district court. We theref ore 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 pr oceed without prepayment of costs or fees is granted. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge