T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al ar gum ent . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34( f) ; 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT PA U L H U G G I N S, J R . , Pr ophet E vangel i s tD oct orR ever end/ K i ds Ag a i n s tAl c o h o l Dru g s a n d Cr i me as K A A D A C the Fi r s tB l ack M i n i s tryNa t i o n s o f

I s ru m, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. SA FE W A Y , I N C . , actual l ynamed a s S a fe w a ye t al./Jo h n D o fe m a le e m p lo y e r, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 1423 ( D . C ol or ado) ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - c v - 0 1 0 9 5 - Z L W)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** P a u l H u g g in s, Jr ., p ro c e e d in g p ro se , ap p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s s u a sp o n te di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce f orfai l ur e t o compl yw i th the-2-

r equi r ement s of R ul e 8 of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on. See K uehl v. FD I C , 8 F. 3d 9 0 5 , 9 0 8 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); S a la h u d d in v . C u o m o , 8 6 1 F .2 d 4 0 , 4 2 (2 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). B e c a u s e M r . H u g g i n s i s p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , w e c o n s tru e h i s c o m p l a i n tl i b e r a l l y. S e e H a in e s v . K e rn e r, 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -2 1 (1 9 7 2 ). U pon r evi ew of M r . H uggi ns ’ s compl ai nt , w e di s cern no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s i tw i thoutpr ej udi ce. R ul e 8 r equi r es “( 1) a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the gr ounds upon w hi ch the court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on depends . . . ( 2) a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the cl ai m s how i ng t hatthe pl eade r i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef, and ( 3) a demand forj udgm entforthe r el i ef the pl eade r s eeks . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 8( A ) . T hes e r equi r ement s ens ur e thatt he compl ai nt

“‘ gi ve[s ] the defendantfai rnot i ce of w hatt he pl ai nt i ff' s cl ai m i s and the gr ounds upon w hi ch i tr es t s . ’ ” Sw i erki ew i cz v. Sor ema N . A . , 534 U . S. 506, 512 ( 2002) (q u o tin g C o n le yv . G ib s o n , 3 5 5 U .S . 4 1 , 4 7 (1 9 5 7 )) . H er e, M r . H uggi ns ’ s compl ai ntal l eges t hat , w hi l e he w as pay i ng forgas at a S a fe w a ysto re , a S a fe w a ye m p lo y e e a llo w e d o th e r c u sto m e rs to h a v e a c c e ss to per s onal i nform at i on on hi s cr edi tcar d. A ccor di ng t o M r . H uggi ns , t he empl oy ee “s t at ed di r ect l yt o m e thatI , am P enetr at i on agai ns ty ou and I , am P enetr at i on a g a in st a ll B lac k P e o p le” a n d to ld h im th a t h e w a s n o t allo w e d to c o m e b a c k in to th e sto re . R e c . d o c . 3 , at 2 . M r. H u g g in s a ss e rts th a t th is c o n d u c t v io late d h is Fi r s tand Second A m endmentr i ght s and hi s r i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on.-3-

T h e c o n stitu tio n a l p ro v isio n s in v o k e d b yM r. H u g g in s c o n c e rn a c ts comm i t t ed bythe governm entorbyper s ons act i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw . See Sm i th v. K i t chen, 156 F. 3d 1025, 1028 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( “A pr i vat e i ndi vi dual fa lls w ith in th e sc o p e o f o u r C o n stitu tio n ’s . . . gu a ra n tee s o n lyw h e n th e p riv a te a c to r m a y‘b e fa irlysa id to b e a sta te a c to r.’” ) (q u o tin g L u g a r v . E d m o n d so n O il C o . , 4 5 7 U . S . 9 2 2 , 9 3 7 (19 8 2 )). F rom the a ll eg ati o n s o f M r. H u g g ins’s compl ai nt , w e s ee no i ndi cat i on thatthe governm entw as i nvol ved i n the al l eged w r ongdoi ng. M or eover , fr om M r . H uggi ns ’ s al l egat i ons , w e ca n di s cern no ot her gr ound fort he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j ur i s di ct i on ora cl ai m forr el i ef. A cc o rdin g ly , w e A F F IR M the d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of M r. H u g g ins’s c o m p lain t w ith o u t p reju d ice . A p p e llan t’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris is deni ed.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge