IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02499-BNB

JASON FRANCISCO AGUON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORONADO CROSSING APARTMENTS, and

(ETL) EVERYONE INVOLVED,

Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Jason Francisco Aguon, initiated this action by filing pro se a Complaint. 

The court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Aguon is not represented

by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon,

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the court should not be an advocate for

a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Aguon

will be ordered to file an amended complaint.

The court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that the Complaint does not

comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The twin purposes of a complaint are to give the opposing parties fair notice

of the basis for the claims against them so that they may respond and to allow the court

to conclude that the allegations, if proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See

Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass’n of

Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989). The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8

Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 10 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

are designed to meet these purposes. See TV Communications Network, Inc. v.

ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991), aff’d, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir.

1992). Specifically, Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “must contain (1) a short and

plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for

the relief sought.” The philosophy of Rule 8(a) is reinforced by Rule 8(d)(1), which

provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Taken together,

Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the

federal pleading rules. Prolix, vague, or unintelligible pleadings violate the requirements

of Rule 8.

Mr. Aguon fails to set forth a short and plain statement of the grounds for the

court’s jurisdiction. In other words, Mr. Aguon fails to identify the statutory authority that

allows the court to consider the claims he is asserting in this action.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They

possess only that power authorized by Constitution and

statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is

to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests

upon the party asserting jurisdiction.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations

omitted).

Mr. Aguon also fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing

that he is entitled to relief. Mr. Aguon alleges that he was not paid for overtime hours he

worked as a maintenance man and that he was wrongfully terminated from his job, but it

is not clear whether he is asserting a claim based on the overtime pay issue, the alleged

Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 10 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

wrongful termination, or both. If he is asserting a claim based on the overtime pay

issue, he fails to make specific allegations regarding the dates or times for which he

allegedly was not paid the proper wages. If he is asserting a claim based on the alleged

wrongful termination, he fails to make specific allegations regarding his termination,

including why he believes it was wrongful. Finally, it is not clear who the Defendant

identified as “(ETL) Everyone Involved” is or what claim or claims Mr. Aguon may be

asserting against that Defendant.

In order to state a claim in federal court, Mr. Aguon “must explain what each

defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action

harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant

violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir.

2007). The general rule that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally has limits

and “the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in

constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux

& Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

For these reasons, Mr. Aguon will be ordered to file an amended complaint if he

wishes to pursue his claims in this court in this action. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Mr. Aguon file, within thirty (30) days from the date of this

order, an amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8 as discussed in this order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Aguon shall obtain the Court-approved Complaint

form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is

Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 10 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Aguon fails within the time allowed to file an

amended complaint that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without

further notice.

DATED December 19, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 10 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4