Ruiz v. Gottlieb

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SERENA RUIZ, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-00177-JD
)
BRIAN GOTTLIEB, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Plaintiff Serena Ruiz, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint [Doc. No. 1] on
February 2, 2026. Upon review, the Court strikes the Complaint for failure to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and controlling Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit
precedent.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). Rule 8(d) further requires that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). “Rule 8 serves the important purpose of requiring plaintiffs
to state their claims intelligibly so as to inform the defendants of the legal claims being
asserted.” Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007).
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court is mindful that Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519 (1972) requires a liberal construction of pro se complaints. However, the Court may
not “supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint . . . .”
Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173–74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hall v.
Case 5:26-cv-00177-JD Document 5 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiff bears “the burden of alleging
sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Hall, 935 F.2d at
1110. “[C]onclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to
state a claim on which relief can be based.” Id.
“Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it
is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged, and it would be
futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 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).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of two conclusory assertions and a request for
“issuance of mandamus.” [Doc. No. 1 at 1]. Plaintiff omits any allegations explaining
how Defendant’s actions plausibly give rise to a cognizable legal claim. The Complaint
does not even explain what harm has befallen the Plaintiff. The Complaint therefore fails
to state a plausible claim for relief under Twombly and Iqbal. It also fails to assert
grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. No. 1]. However,
the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the deficiencies by filing an amended
complaint by the deadline set forth in this Order.
Case 5:26-cv-00177-JD Document 5 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended
complaint by February 24, 2026, as set forth in this Order. Failure to file an amended
complaint on or before February 24, 2026, 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 of procedure and court
orders will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 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 10th day of February 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00177-JD Document 5 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3