Clark v. Rosenthal et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LUCY CLARK, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-917-R
)
MICHAEL ROSENTHAL 	)
& KEVIN McCLANAHAN, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Lucy Clark has filed a Complaint [Doc. No. 1] against Defendants
Michael Rosenthal and Kevin McClanahan. The one-page Complaint states:
1. Defendant Kevin Mcclanahan violated due process,
2. Defendant Michael Rosenthal conspired with Kevin Mcclanahan,
2. [sic] Plaintiff demands an award to be decided by the Court.
Id. Plaintiff makes no other allegations. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This Rule “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). The standard articulated by Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-
Case 5:26-cv-00917-R Document 3 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 3

2
me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[C]onclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based.” Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Thus, to meet Rule 8’s standard, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “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.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678. This typically requires a complaint to “explain what each defendant did to him
or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what
specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cnty. Just. Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). The
allegations must, at a minimum, provide “the defendant sufficient notice to begin preparing
its defense and the court sufficient clarity to adjudicate the merits.” Id. Additionally, Rule
8(d) requires “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”
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 arguments.” Garrett
v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hall, 935
F.2d at 1110). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations are too conclusory to state a plausible claim or
give defendants fair notice.
Case 5:26-cv-00917-R Document 3 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Plaintiff’s Complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure
to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.1 Her Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2026.
1 Dismissal may also be proper on jurisdictional grounds. See Williams v. Jimenez, No.
CIV-26-31-SLP, 2026 WL 78147, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 9, 2026) (examining a complaint
with similar sparse allegations and stating the “only possible basis for . . . 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.”).
Case 5:26-cv-00917-R Document 3 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 3