Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

Docket: 1:25-CV-01164-CMA-RTG)

The Tenth Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff Edward Hoid’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) without prejudice and denying his motion to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The court held that both pleadings failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” The court applied a de novo standard of review to the district court’s decision, which had adopted a United States Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Magistrate Judge found the SAC to be 149 pages long, ending mid-sentence, and containing verbose, repetitive, and conclusory factual allegations that failed to clearly identify claims against specific defendants or establish a logical relationship for joinder among the 36 named parties. The district court determined the proposed TAC suffered from identical defects. The appellate court agreed with this assessment, noting the pleadings lacked clarity regarding which claims were asserted against each defendant and did not demonstrate entitlement to relief. As a practical consequence, the dismissal of the action without prejudice remains in effect, meaning the case is closed unless Plaintiff files a compliant pleading that satisfies Rule 8(a). The court also granted Hoid’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.