Dawud Canaan Sturrup Gabriel v. Trans Am Trucking Company

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
DAWUD CANAAN STURRUP
GABRIEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TRANS AM TRUCKING COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 22-3102
(D.C. No. 2:22-CV-02126-JWB-ADM)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Dawud Canaan Sturrup Gabriel, proceeding pro se, 1 challenges the district
court’s dismissal of his amended complaint and the denial of various motions related
to the dismissal of that complaint. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we
affirm.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
1 Because Gabriel is a pro se litigant, we liberally construe his filings,
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), without acting as his advocate, Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 25, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 22-3102 Document: 010110729759 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 5 --

2
BACKGROUND
In April 2022, to allege a single claim under the Americans with Disabilities
Act against Trans Am Trucking Company, Gabriel submitted a 195-page complaint
that contained over 100 pages of attachments. The district court ruled that the
complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and ordered
Gabriel to submit an amended complaint.
Just three days after the district court’s order, Gabriel filed a 190-page
amended complaint that again contained over 100 pages of attachments. 2 Gabriel then
filed a motion requesting the district-court judge to recuse himself from the case and
to vacate the order dismissing his original complaint.
After that, Gabriel moved for an extension of time to complete service and to
file a second amended complaint. A magistrate judge denied this motion without
prejudice. In response, Gabriel moved to vacate the magistrate judge’s order.
The district court, in a single order, dismissed the amended complaint without
prejudice for again failing to comply with Rule 8(a), denied the motion to recuse and
to vacate the order dismissing the original complaint, and denied the motion to vacate
the magistrate judge’s order. Gabriel now appeals each denial. And he also separately
requests that we order the district-court judge to recuse himself from the case.
2 Gabriel asserts that he filed his amended complaint to correct the numbering
of sections in his original complaint.
Appellate Case: 22-3102 Document: 010110729759 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 5 --

3
DISCUSSION
I. Dismissal of Amended Complaint
We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8(a) for abuse
of discretion. United States ex rel. Lemmon v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 614 F.3d
1163, 1167 (10th Cir. 2010).
Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” The rule’s purpose is “to give
opposing parties fair notice of the basis of the claim against them so that they may
respond to the complaint, and to apprise the court of sufficient allegations to allow it
to conclude, if the allegations are proved, that the claimant has a legal right to relief.”
Whitehead v. Shafer, 295 F. App’x 906, 908 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
Under this rule, a district court may dismiss a complaint when it “is
incomprehensible.” Id. (citation omitted).
Here, the district court dismissed Gabriel’s amended complaint because it
contained “so much extraneous material and so few allegations relevant to any claim
against Trans Am Trucking Company that the court [could] not discern from the
complaint or the amended complaint if [Gabriel] might have a viable claim.” R. vol.
2 at 7. Upon review of the amended complaint, we agree with this conclusion.
Gabriel’s repeated assertion that the district court’s dismissal was an abuse of
discretion does not make it so.
Appellate Case: 22-3102 Document: 010110729759 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 3

-- 3 of 5 --

4
II. Motions to Vacate
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to
vacate. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1129
(10th Cir. 2010).
Gabriel argues that the district court abused its discretion by allowing a
magistrate judge to participate in the proceedings without his consent. But as the
district court correctly noted, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge
may rule on certain pretrial matters without the parties’ consent. R. vol. 2 at 8; see
also UFCW Loc. 880-Retail Food Emps. Joint Pension Fund v. Newmont Mining
Corp., 261 F. App’x 105, 109 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting that § 636(b)(1)(A) “do[es]
not require consent from a party”). Thus, the fact that a magistrate judge ruled on one
of Gabriel’s motions is no ground for reversal.
As for Gabriel’s motion to vacate the order requiring him to file an amended
complaint, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. Like the amended
complaint, the original complaint contained so many irrelevant allegations and
extraneous materials that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
the complaint did not comply with Rule 8(a).
III. Recusal of District-Court Judge
We “review a district court’s denial of a motion to recuse or disqualify a judge
for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Mobley, 971 F.3d 1187, 1195 (10th Cir.
2020) (citation omitted). Gabriel asserts that the district-court judge is envious of
“the substantial monetary judgment [he] may receive” for his claim and should thus
Appellate Case: 22-3102 Document: 010110729759 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 4

-- 4 of 5 --

5
not be permitted to preside over this case. Opening Br. at 28. As evidence of this
bias, Gabriel points out that the district-court judge dismissed his complaints and
denied his motions. But “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis
for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). We
agree with the district-court judge that Gabriel has presented no other viable evidence
of bias. And for the same reasons, we deny Gabriel’s request to remove the district-
court judge from the case.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we affirm.
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 22-3102 Document: 010110729759 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 5

-- 5 of 5 --