Patrzalek v. Finance Cartel The et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KONRAD TADEUSZ PATRZALEK, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-01312-JD
)
THE FINANCE CARTEL, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff Konrad Tadeusz Patrzalek, appearing pro se, filed
his 63-page complaint, with a 47-page exhibit, totaling 110 pages. [Doc. No. 1]. Then, on
November 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, totaling 108 pages and
asserting 25 claims against 65-plus defendants. [Doc. No. 13].1 Upon review of the
amended complaint, the Court strikes the amended complaint for failure to comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the case law interpreting the same, and the Local
Civil Rules.
Although the Court construes a pro se litigant’s pleading liberally, a pro se party
must still “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Garrett v.
Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted);
1 Plaintiff amended his complaint “once as a matter of course” under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). The “amended complaint supersedes the original complaint
and renders the original complaint of no legal effect.” Franklin v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr.,
160 F. App’x 730, 734 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (citing Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d
1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991) and Gilles v. United States, 906 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.
1990)).
Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 5

2
accord Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Proceeding pro se does
not excuse the litigant from complying with the requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or the Local Civil Rules. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1
(10th Cir. 2008).
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include, among
other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing Plaintiff is entitled to
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Additionally, each allegation in the complaint must be
“simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). This is not just a minimum standard
for a plaintiff but also a protection for a defendant. The rule is violated by “unnecessary
length and burying of material allegations in a morass of irrelevancies.” Baker v. City of
Loveland, 686 F. App’x 619, 620 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (internal quotation
marks and citation 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
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) (citation omitted). “Significantly,
Rule 8(a) 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) (unpublished) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts routinely strike or dismiss complaints that
fail to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8. See Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148 (affirming
dismissal of a 99-page complaint that was made “unintelligible ‘by scattering and
Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 5

3
concealing in a morass of irrelevancies the few allegations that matter’”) (quoting United
States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003));
Schupper v. Edie, 193 F. App’x 744, 745–46 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (affirming
the striking of a 38-page complaint containing 292 paragraphs plus 120 pages of exhibits
as contrary to Rule 8(a)); cf. Baker, 686 F. App’x at 620 (affirming the dismissal of the
amended complaint under Rule 8 that was “filled with unnecessary legal arguments and
detail” and that lacked “clarity about what each defendant allegedly did to incur
liability”); Hollaway v. Arvada Police, No. 21-1097, 2022 WL 1679252, at *1 (10th Cir.
May 26, 2022) (unpublished) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s
second amended complaint without prejudice due to his failure to comply with the
pleading standards in Rule 8); Abdelsamed v. Colorado, 6 F. App’x 771, 772 (10th Cir.
2001) (unpublished) (affirming district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiff’s amended
complaint where it was noncompliant with Rule 8 and “would be manifestly unfair to
expect Defendants to respond reasonably to Plaintiff’s colossal, often incomprehensible,
complaint”).
Here, despite the liberal construction given to a pro se litigant’s pleading,
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is insufficient to satisfy federal pleading requirements.
Specifically, the amended complaint is overly long and not simple, concise, or direct: it
contains unnumbered, single-spaced paragraphs, and it fails to state, in short and plain
terms, a claim against each of the 65-plus defendants showing that Plaintiff is entitled to
relief. The amended complaint is not organized by dates, events, or in any coherent way,
making it unintelligible, vague, confusing, and prolix. Plaintiff also purports in places to
Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 5

4
“incorporate” the exhibits, tables, and matrices, and an additional “online repository”
with a purported link and password, for the foundation of the amended complaint, which
is improper. See, e.g., [Doc. No. 13 at 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 80, 61–108]. See Schupper, 193
F. App’x at 746 (“It is not the role of either the court or the defendant to sort through a
lengthy, poorly drafted complaint and voluminous exhibits in order to construct
plaintiff’s causes of action.”). Additionally, because so many of the allegations target the
defendants as a group—and there are a large number of defendants named by Plaintiff—
the Court cannot understand what each defendant allegedly did to Plaintiff. See Nasious
v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cnty. Just. Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1163
(10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each
defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s
action harmed [the pro se plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes
the defendant violated.”); see also Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir.
2008) (“[I]t is particularly important . . . that the complaint make clear exactly who is
alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each individual with fair notice as to the
basis of the claims against him or her . . . .”).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint also violates numerous Local Civil Rules. See
LCvR7.1(d) (requiring that “[f]or all pleadings . . . the print style, including footnotes,
shall not be less than 13-point type, and margins shall be a minimum of one inch on the
top, bottom, and sides”); LCvR5.2(a) (requiring all papers presented to the clerk for filing
“shall be double-spaced, if typewritten, using only one side of the paper”); LCvR3.1
(“Counsel and pro se litigants are required to number each party separately in the caption
Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 5

5
of the initiating documents, plaintiffs consecutively and defendants consecutively.”);
LCvR7.1(m) (“Unnecessarily voluminous exhibits, attachments, and appendices to filings
should be avoided.”).2
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s amended complaint [Doc. No. 13]
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the case law interpreting the same, and the
Local Civil Rules. However, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the
deficiencies by filing a second amended complaint by the deadline set forth in this Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second
amended complaint by December 11, 2025, as set forth in this Order. Failure to file a
second amended complaint by December 11, 2025, complying with this Order and the
authorities referenced herein will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.
The Court specifically warns Plaintiff that failure to comply with the rules and court
orders will result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f);
41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (recognizing the
“‘inherent power’ . . . necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to
achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of November 2025.
2 See https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/Local_Rules_0.pdf
Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP Document 14 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 5