Alexander v. Hill-Kearse et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSEPH ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAWN HILL-KEARSE and
SERGIO JIMENEZ,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-113-SLP
O R D E R
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint [Doc. No. 1] against two
individual Defendants. The Complaint’s allegations are sparse. Plaintiff identifies no
federal statutory basis for his claims. 	He makes a vague allegation that “Defendants
conspired together and intentionally delayed the calendar of motions, in violation of
due process[.]” No other allegations are made.
A complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 	While “a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be
construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers, . . . the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s
attorney in constructing arguments.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425
F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The only possible basis for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction is
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Plaintiff’s reference to a “due process” violation.
Case 5:26-cv-00113-SLP Document 4 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
But the factual allegations are too threadbare to decipher the basis for any claim
premised on such a violation. Thus, the Complaint is subject to dismissal on
jurisdictional grounds.
The Court has also considered whether the Complaint should be dismissed for
failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	Rule 8(a)
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).
Rule 8 “does not require detailed factual allegations, . . . [but] it demands more than an
unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(internal quotation marks omitted). Pro se litigants are not excused from meeting these
minimal pleading requirements. “This is so because 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.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 	“If a
complaint fails to meet these basic pleading requirements, a district court may dismiss
the action sua sponte for failure to comply with Rule 8.” Rodriguez v. Nationwide
Homes, Inc., 756 F. App’x 782, 785 (10th Cir. 2018) (citing Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161, n. 2 (10th Cir. 2007)). 	Here, Plaintiff fails to
identify with any clarity the factual or legal bases for his claim(s). Accordingly, the
Complaint 	is 	alternatively 	subject 	to 	dismissal 	for 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	the
requirements of Rule 8.
Case 5:26-cv-00113-SLP Document 4 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT 	IS 	THEREFORE 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	Complaint 	[Doc. 	No. 	1] 	is
DISMISSED 	WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE. 	Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s 	Application 	to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED as
MOOT.
A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00113-SLP Document 4 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3