Court Opinion

ID: 175188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-09-13 16:27:53+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:33.851031
License: Public Domain

ORDER AND JUDGMENT
  
   *
  

  HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
 

  We consolidate these three appeals filed by John Moore.
 

  In 10-1204 and 10-1213, Mr. Moore appeals dismissals without prejudice by the district court. In both cases the court held that his complaint failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Those holdings were clearly correct. Even liberally construing Mr. Moore’s pro se complaints, it is impossible to determine the basis of the federal court’s jurisdiction or the basis of a colorable cause of action. We, therefore AFFIRM the judgments below and the denials of Mr. Moore’s post-judgment motions.
 

  In 10-1222, Mr. Moore filed a similarly defective complaint. But before the complaint could be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8, Mr. Moore wrote a letter to the magistrate judge stating in its entirety: “I what [sic] this case to be dismiss # case 10CV01018 [the district-court case number].” R. at 9. The district court properly construed the letter as a motion to dismiss and granted dismissal without prejudice. On appeal Mr. Moore states his two issues as “I what a hearing” and “it is not right.” Aplt. Br. at 3. We AFFIRM the judgment below.
 

  We DENY Mr. Moore’s motions to proceed
  
   informa pauperis.
  

   *
  

   After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.