Williams v. Jimenez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LUCAS WILLIAMS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-31-SLP
)
SERGIO JIMENEZ, )
KEVIN C. McCLANAHAN, )
CARMEN PACHECO, )
DAWN HILL-KEARSE, and )
WAVNY TOUSSAINT, )
)
Defendants. )
O R D E R
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint [Doc. No. 1] against five 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
with individuals in LT-325749-22/KI, in which the next court appearance is scheduled for
2/4/26 before Defendant Sergio Jimenz.” He further alleges that “[a]ll defendants
conspired together 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
Case 5:26-cv-00031-SLP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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.
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
Case 5:26-cv-00031-SLP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
his claim(s). Accordingly, the Complaint is alternatively subject to dismissal for failure to
comply with the requirements of Rule 8.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00031-SLP Document 3 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 3