Jones v. Oklahoma State of et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JANICE LYNN JONES, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1383-R
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
After screening Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint and concluding that
it was deficient, the Court instructed Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should
not be dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s orders and failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff filed a response asserting that she had removed certain defendants that were
entitled to absolute immunity and that she can state a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
claim against child welfare workers that use false evidence.
Upon consideration, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has adequately
addressed the deficiencies outlined in the prior orders. As previously explained, the
Amended Complaint violates Rule 8 as it is not a short and plain statement of the claims.
Importantly, Rule 8 “establishes a ceiling (the complaint must be no more than ‘a short and
plain statement’) and not a floor (the complaint must at least be a ‘short and plain
statement’).” Toevs v. Reid, 267 F. App'x 817, 818–19 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix
in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs
Case 5:25-cv-01383-R Document 14 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” Mann
v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, a complaint is “an improper and impermissible place for the tedious and
burdensome aggregation of prospective evidence.” Trump v. New York Times Co., No.
8:25-CV-2487-SDM-NHA, 2025 WL 2680597, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2025).
Plaintiff’s 	Amended 	Complaint 	is 	neither 	short 	nor 	plain 	and 	includes 	an
unnecessary and burdensome aggregation of prospective evidence. The Court has twice
instructed Plaintiff to comply with Rule 8 and she has not done so. Plaintiff’s failure to
provide a short and plain statement of the claim is, on its own, “sufficient reason to dismiss
the complaint.” Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148.
Additionally, Plaintiff has not provided a response to the Court’s conclusion that the
Amended 	Complaint 	contains 	several 	other 	deficiencies, 	including 	allegations 	that
resemble frivolous sovereign citizen theories, allegations directed at defendants that are
either entitled to immunity or lack the capacity to be sued, claims based on criminal statutes
that do not provide a private cause of action, and claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that
are not proper in this action. Plaintiff has also failed to explain why her claims, which
appear to seek reversal of state court rulings, would not be barred by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. See Kanth v. Lubeck, 123 F. App'x 921, 924 (10th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with
Rule 8 and the Court’s prior orders.
Case 5:25-cv-01383-R Document 14 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11 th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01383-R Document 14 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3