Bridges v. Lane, 10th Cir. (2009)

FILED
United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit
October 27, 2009

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
HOWARD BERTRAND BRIDGES, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WES LANE, Oklahoma DA, Oklahoma
County; COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA; FBI
OKLAHOMA CITY, Unknown Agent #1
Personal Capacity; FBI OKLAHOMA
CITY, Unknown Agent #2 Personal
Capacity; FBI OKLAHOMA CITY, Director
Personal Capacity; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
No. 09-6111
(D. Ct. No. 5:08-CV-00759-HE)
(W.D. Okla. )
Defendants- Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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.
Plaintiff-appellant Howard Bertrand Bridges, Jr. brings this pro se appeal to

challenge the dismissal of his civil complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
1291 and agree with the district court that Mr. Bridges failed to state a plausible claim on
each of the causes of action raised in his complaint and failed to provide fair notice to the
defendants of the charges against them. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
This civil suit arises out of Mr. Bridgess arrest for attempted bank robbery on July
28, 2006 and his subsequent detention in an Oklahoma jail. Mr. Bridges claims that after
two days of his image appearing in television broadcasts that labeled him a bank robber,
the FBI searched his home, seized some of his clothing, and interrogated him. After this
interrogation, Mr. Bridges claims he was confined in the Oklahoma County jail for
twenty days without being informed whether he was in local, state, or federal custody,
without being formally charged, and without being granted access to legal counsel. On
the third day of his confinement, however, Mr. Bridges appeared by video conference
before a state judge who informed him he was being held for attempted bank robbery but
that formal charges had not yet been filed against him. On the twentieth day of his
confinement, Mr. Bridges claims he was released, without ever being formally charged,
only because the Oklahoma NAACP intervened on his behalf by contacting the district
attorney, a defendant in this case, Wes Lane.
Mr. Bridges filed his initial civil complaint on July 22, 2008 in which he raised
-2-
multiple state and federal law claims against various local, state, and federal officers and
entities. On September 10, 2008, the district court granted a motion by Mr. Bridges to
amend his initial complaint. On October 3, 2008, Mr. Bridges filed his first amended
complaint which the district court dismissed pursuant to separate motions from the
various defendants claiming insufficient service of process, lack of jurisdiction, and
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Nevertheless, the district court
granted Mr. Bridges leave to amend his complaint a second time.
Mr. Bridges filed his second amended complaint on January 7, 2009, but before
the district court could rule on defendants separate motions to dismiss, Mr. Bridges again
sought leave to amend which the district court granted on January 23, 2009. In its order
granting leave to amend, the district court specifically directed Mr. Bridges to address the
deficiencies in his prior complaints which included failures to link specific alleged
constitutional violations to specific defendants and failures to plead adequate facts to
support his various state law claims. Furthermore, in granting leave to amend for the
third time, the district court implored Mr. Bridges to obtain counsel to assist him in
drafting a valid complaint.
Mr. Bridges did not secure counsel. He filed his final amended complaint, the
complaint that is the subject of this appeal, on February 17, 2009. This complaint
generally alleges eleven state and federal causes of action against seven local, state, and
federal officers and entities. Finding that this complaint was substantially the same as his
prior inadequate complaints, the district court again dismissed it, but this time with
-3-
prejudice. Specifically, the district court determined that this complaint failed again to
link specific alleged violations to specific defendants in a manner that would give them
notice and generally failed to provide factual allegations that created plausible claims for
relief. Mr. Bridges now appeals the dismissal of his final amended complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Bridges alleges only two claims of error: (1) that his complaint
raised a federal question; and (2) that the district judge violated his right to due process by
rejecting his requests for discovery. Giving Mr. Bridges, a pro se appellant, the benefit of
the doubt and construing his first claim liberally, we will review his final amended
complaint in its entirety to determine if it states any legally cognizable claims. Because
we ultimately find that the district court properly dismissed his complaint, Mr. Bridgess
argument that the district court erred by not ordering discovery is moot and we will not
address it.
A.
Standard of Review
We review de novo a district courts dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), applying the same legal standard to the complaint as the district court. Teigen v.
Renfrow, 511 F.3d 1072, 1078 (10th Cir. 2007). In doing so, we accept all well-pleaded
facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
Furthermore, we construe pro se complaints liberally, but are mindful that it is not the
proper function of a court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The burden is on the plaintiff to craft an
-4-
adequate complaint that contains enough factual allegations to state facially plausible
claims for relief and provide fair notice to defendants of the nature of the claims against
them. Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 124748 (10th Cir. 2008). We are
especially critical of complaints that do not articulate specific times, places, or persons
involved in the alleged misconduct because such complaints give defendant[s] seeking to
respond to plaintiffs conclusory allegations . . . little idea where to begin. Id. at 1248
(quotations omitted).
B.
Mr. Bridgess Complaint Fails to State Any Plausible Claim for Relief and Fails to
Provide Fair Notice to Defendants
As discussed above, Mr. Bridgess final amended complaint contains eleven state
and federal causes of action against seven local, state, and federal officers and entities.
These claims can reasonably be separated into two categories: (1) claims under 42 U.S.C.
1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971); and (2) state law tort claims.
Generally, 1983 provides a federal cause of action against state officials who
violate an individuals federally protected rights, either under the Constitution or federal
statutes. See 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Supreme Court recognized a similar cause of action
against federal officials in Bivens. 403 U.S. at 409. In 1983 and Bivens cases against
individual government actors, there is a peculiar risk that the complaint will fail to
provide adequate notice because such cases typically involve complex claims against
multiple defendants. See Robbins, 519 F.3d at 124950 (discussing the increased risk that
-5-
a complaint will fail to provide notice in complex 1983 cases). In such cases, it 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. Id. at 1250 (emphasis omitted).
Mr. Bridgess complaint, when construed liberally, contains four possible claims
that implicate his federally protected rights: (1) a speedy trial claim under the Sixth
Amendment or the federal Speedy Trial Act based on his confinement for twenty days
without being charged; (2) an unreasonable seizure claim under the Fourth Amendment
based on his arrest without evidence to support it; (3) a right to counsel claim under the
Fifth and Sixth Amendments based on his lack of access to an attorney during his
confinement; and (4) various due process claims based on alleged governmental
conspiracies, racial biases, and failures to follow procedures required by law.
None of these possible claims is articulated with the specificity required to state a
plausible claim for relief or provide fair notice to the defendants. Indeed, as the district
court recognized, Mr. Bridges fail[ed] to isolate the allegedly unconstitutional acts of
each defendant and thus failed to provide adequate notice of the charges against them.
Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1250. For example, Mr. Bridges alleges he was incarcerated for
twenty days without being charged but admits he does not know whether he was in local,
state, or federal custody. Additionally, Mr. Bridges claims to have been unreasonably
seized but admits he does not know what entity actually arrested him. Accordingly, we
agree with the district court that Mr. Bridgess complaint does not adequately state any
-6-
claim for relief under 1983 or Bivens.

Similarly, Mr. Bridgess complaint fails to adequately plead any claims under state
tort laws. While his complaint generally alludes to claims of defamation, false
imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, none of these claims are
supported with sufficient factual allegations to create a plausible claim for relief or
provide fair notice to defendants. For example, Mr. Bridges claims that his reputation has
been injured irreparably, however, he fails to link that damage to any specific defamatory
statement by any specific defendant. Accordingly, we agree with the district courts
conclusion that Mr. Bridgess complaint fails to articulate any state law claims with the
specificity required to state a plausible claim for relief or provide fair notice to the
defendants.
Keeping in mind our duty to construe Mr. Bridgess claims liberally, we find that
his complaint fails to adequately state any claim under 1983, Bivens, or state tort law,
and point out the repeated opportunities Mr. Bridges had to secure counsel or craft an
adequate complaint addressing the deficiencies in his prior complaints of which the
district court clearly made him aware. Complaints, like Mr. Bridgess, that make general
legal claims without specific factual support, even when filed by pro se litigants, do not
state plausible claims for relief or provide fair notice to defendants and are therefore
subject to dismissal.
-7-
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge
-8-

Bridges v. Lane, 10th Cir. (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridges v. Lane, 10th Cir. (2009)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridges v. Lane, 10th Cir. (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

October 27, 2009

HOWARD BERTRAND BRIDGES, JR.,

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-appellant Howard Bertrand Bridges, Jr. brings this pro se appeal to

claim for relief under 1983 or Bivens.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

You might also like