“[A] pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.”
How later courts described this case
- “[A] pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GABARYAAHLA AND AKIVA ISRAEL )
LIVING ESTATE )
c/o Gabaryaahla Israel, Executor, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 24-1255-D
)
MIDFIRST BANK, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended pro se Complaint [Doc. No. 3], entitled
“Amended Complaint Affidavit of Forgery with no Landlord-Tenant Relationship.”
District courts have the inherent power to manage their dockets. See United States
v. Schneider, 594 F.3d 1219, 1226 (10th Cir.2010) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370
U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); United States v. Nicholson, 983 F.2d 983, 988 (10th Cir.1993)).
This power includes the ability to “dismiss a frivolous or malicious action ... even in the
absence of [a] statutory provision.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490
U.S. 296, 306–07 (1989) (quotation marks omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces “does not require
‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Pro se litigants are not excused from Rule 8’s requirements. See Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[A] pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training
to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the
court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.”).
Although a pro se complaint must be liberally construed, “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).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff makes
no discernible factual allegations against 18 of the 19 named Defendants. Absent any
factual allegations, Plaintiff’s claims against said Defendants are subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff focuses his complaint on Defendant Midfirst Bank, but mainly makes
conclusory statements devoid of factual support. Among other assertions, the Complaint
states the following:
6. Plaintiff asserts that mortgage documents contain forged signatures and
were altered to fraudulently transfer property interests without proper
authority.
…
9. Plaintiff denies the existence of any tenant-landlord relationship with
Defendant.
…
11. Defendant breached fiduciary duties by failing to disclose securitization
of Plaintiff’s mortgage, rendering the contract unenforceable.
…
13. Defendant violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
as outlined in Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement 95,
page 21, by failing to disclose securitization transactions.
14. The Affidavit of Walker Todd demonstrates banks do not lend their own
funds but instead leverage promissory notes as assets.
…
18. Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F. Supp. 647 (E.D. Pa. 1964), establishes that
pleadings must be supported by competent evidence, which Defendant failed
to provide.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court finds that the Complaint is subject
to dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
What allegations may exist are unadorned and difficult to understand. For example,
it is not clear why Plaintiff denies the existence of a tenant-landlord relationship, or what
that has to do with the purportedly forged mortgage documents. In ¶ 11, the Court is not
sure what “contract” Plaintiff refers to, and the remaining claims appear to be bald legal
assertions related to various consumer protection statutes.1 To the extent Plaintiff attempts
to assert a fraud claim, Plaintiff’s pleading wholly misses the mark of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b),
requiring fraud to be pled with particularity.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. No.
3] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Within 21 days from the date of this Order,
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a).2 If no pleading is
1 Furthermore, the Amended Complaint cites what appear to be irrelevant legal authorities.
In Trinsey v. Pagliaro, for example, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion
to dismiss, partly because the defendants in that case failed to attach supporting evidence.
See Trinsey v. Pagliaro, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F. Supp. 647 (E.D. Pa. 1964). It is unclear
how that relates to Defendants’ alleged violations of the “Securities Act” that Plaintiff
recounts just before the citation.
2 To that end, Plaintiff is encouraged to review the Court’s Pro Se Guide;
https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/REVISED_PRO_SE_GUIDE_WITH_F
ORMS.pdf
filed within 21 days, this action will be dismissed without prejudice to a future filing and
without further notice to Plaintiff. Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 8, 10] are
DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7" day of February 2025.
\ ty Q □□□
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge