IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02628-BNB

WORDEN L. BOURN, 

CHARLES GREENLEE, and 

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

GEO GROUP, INC., Hudson Correctional Facility, 

WARDEN JOE DRIVER, 

ASSOCIATE WARDEN RON MURRAY, 

STATE OF ALASKA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 

DEOUTY [sic] COMMISSIONER SAM EDWARDS, and 

OTHERS TO BE NAMED,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs, Worden L. Bourn and Charles Greenlee, are prisoners in the custody of

the Alaska Department of Corrections who currently are incarcerated at the Hudson

Correctional Facility, a private correctional facility in Hudson, Colorado. They filed pro

se a civil rights complaint for injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28

U.S.C. § 1332 because the “[d]efendants reside in multiple state[s] across the United

States.” ECF No. 1 at 4. On January 9, 2012, Messrs. Bourne and Greenlee were

granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 31. 

On February 13, 2012, the Court ordered (ECF No. 48) Messrs. Bourn and

Green to file within thirty days an amended complaint that complied with the pleading

requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, alleged an actual or

Case 1:11-cv-02628-LTB Document 51 Filed 03/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
2

threatened injury, and asserted the personal participation of each named Defendant. 

On March 1, 2012, Messrs. Bourn and Greenlee filed an amended complaint (ECF No.

49) pursuant to § 1983 and § 1332 because “Multiple Plaintiffs with same issues -

Multiple Defendants in different States.” ECF No. 49 at 4. The request for relief

includes money damages and injunctive relief. On March 1, Mr. Bourn also filed a letter

in which he asks for an example of a prisoner complaint. Because the Court is unable

to provide legal advice, the request will be denied. 

The Court must construe the amended complaint liberally because Plaintiffs are

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, the amended complaint will be dismissed. 

Only one Plaintiff signed the complaint. Although the signature is illegible, it

appears to be that of Mr. Bourn. The pronouns “I,” “me,” “my,” “we” are used

throughout the amended complaint, creating confusion about whether one or both

Plaintiffs are asserting claims and, if only one, which Plaintiff is doing so. See, e.g.,

ECF No. 49 at 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The discussion of the nature of the case in the

amended complaint is generally unintelligible, but the gist of the amended complaint

appears to be that Plaintiffs disagree with their transfer to an out-of-state facility, i.e.,

Hudson Correctional Facility, that allegedly fails to provide the staff they require and the

food they need. 

The four asserted claims are vague and conclusory. Claim one concerns the

Hudson Correctional Facility’s alleged failure to provide a diet consistent with one

Case 1:11-cv-02628-LTB Document 51 Filed 03/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
3

unspecified Plaintiff’s spiritual practices or medical orders. Claim two generally alleges

insufficient law library services for inmates. Claim three asserts that the dietician

preparing meals has no regard for the medical and spiritual needs of inmates, that one

unspecified Plaintiff has been assaulted on more than one occasion and suffered

physical injury, and that medical personnel are slow or do not check properly for

medical problems and, therefore, do not provide treatment. Claim four contends that

one unspecified Plaintiff was assaulted and not provided with access to authorities so

he could report the assault and that prison staff also failed to report the assault. No

claim specifies which Defendant or Defendants it is asserted or the personal

participation of any named Defendant. 

 The amended complaint does not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule

8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As Magistrate Judge Boland informed

Plaintiffs in the February 13 order for an amended complaint, 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). Magistrate Judge Boland explained that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

8 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). He pointed out that 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

Case 1:11-cv-02628-LTB Document 51 Filed 03/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
4

the relief sought.” He also explained that 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.” 

Finally, Magistrate Judge Boland pointed out that, taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1)

underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules, and

that prolix, vague, or unintelligible pleadings violate Rule 8.

Plaintiffs’ conditions-of-confinement claims fail to provide detailed information as

to how they have been injured. Instead, Plaintiff or Plaintiffs make broad allegations

concerning his or their own claims and prisoners in general. In the February 13 order,

Magistrate Judge Boland noted the United States Constitution requires that a party

seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must demonstrate that he has

suffered some actual or threatened injury, that the injury was caused by the defendants,

and that a favorable judicial decision is likely to redress the injury. Valley Forge

Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S.

464, 472 (1982); Hackford v. Babbitt, 14 F.3d 1457, 1464 (10th Cir. 1994). Because

Plaintiffs, through the broad allegations concerning prisoners in general, fail to

demonstrate any actual or threatened injury as a result of the conditions of each

Plaintiff’s confinement, they lack standing to assert claims concerning those conditions. 

See Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & County of Denver,

628 F.2d 1289, 1295-96 (10th Cir. 1980). 

In the February 13 order, Magistrate Judge Boland warned Plaintiffs 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

Case 1:11-cv-02628-LTB Document 51 Filed 03/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
5

(10th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs have failed to provide “a generalized statement of the facts

from which the defendant[s] may form a responsive pleading.” New Home Appliance

Ctr., Inc., v. Thompson, 250 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1957). As such, they have failed

to comply with the Rule 8(a) requirement that “[i]t is sufficient, and indeed all that is

permissible, if the complaint concisely states facts upon which relief can be granted

upon any legally sustainable basis.” Id. 

A decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 8 is within the trial court’s

sound discretion. See Atkins v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 967 F.2d 1197, 1203 (8th Cir.

1992); Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969). The Court will

dismiss the action for Plaintiffs’ failure to submit an amended complaint that meets the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal

from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status

will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438

(1962). If either or both Plaintiffs file a notice of appeal he or they also must pay the full

$455 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United

States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed.

R. App. P. 24. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the request by Plaintiff, Worden L. Bourn, in his letter of March 1,

2012, for an example of a prisoner complaint is denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint and the action are dismissed

without prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to file an amended complaint that complies with

Case 1:11-cv-02628-LTB Document 51 Filed 03/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
6

the directives of the order of February 13, 2012. It is 

 FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 7th day of March , 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-02628-LTB Document 51 Filed 03/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6