Waddle v. Mullendore et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AUDRIA WADDLE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-00768-JD
)
JOSHUA MULLENDORE, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENCIES
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Audria Waddle’s Complaint [Doc. No. 1]. Ms.
Waddle has attached five exhibits to the Complaint, which total 53 pages in length. See
[Doc. Nos. 1-1 through 1-5]. Although Ms. Waddle has used the proper form for a pro se
complaint for a civil case, the Complaint is deficient in several respects. Ms. Waddle’s
Complaint does not identify any specific federal law or constitutional provision that form
the basis for her claims. Instead, under Statement of Claim, Ms. Waddle simply states:
“wrongful convictions, civil rights violations, tort, etc. will show court proof through
extended exhibits.” Compl. at 3. Even when these references are liberally construed as
asserting violations of Ms. Waddle’s civil rights under federal law or the United States
Constitution, the Complaint must also allege sufficient facts to state a facially plausible
claim to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim
needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 10 Filed 07/17/25 Page 1 of 3

2
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in
the alternative or different types of relief.
In other words, “to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must 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, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir.
2007). If a complaint alleges these elements, that “enable[s] the legal system to get
weaving—permitting the defendant sufficient notice to begin preparing its defense and
the court sufficient clarity to adjudicate the merits.” Id.
A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff is “to be construed liberally and held to a
less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). At the same time, though, pro se parties must “follow
the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”—including Rule 8—and “the
court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing
arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d
836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Ms. Waddle’s Complaint, as filed, does not comply with Rule 8. The Complaint
does not specifically allege what each defendant did to Ms. Waddle and how those
actions violated Ms. Waddle’s rights. Without such allegations, the defendants cannot
prepare their defense, and the Court cannot properly adjudicate the merits of Ms.
Waddle’s claims. It is not the role of the Court to search through the 53 pages of attached
exhibits to find factual allegations that support Ms. Waddle’s claims.
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 10 Filed 07/17/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Additionally, Ms. Waddle seeks relief to include “vacat[ing] [her] sentences in all
[their] entirety,” “removal of wrongful charges,” and “termination of [a] wrongful
revocation.” Compl. at 3. However, Ms. Waddle does not allege that her conviction or
sentence has been rendered invalid by a state court, reversed on direct appeal, expunged
by executive order, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus. Because she does not allege her conviction has been invalidated, it
appears Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) would preclude her § 1983
claim.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS Ms. Waddle to file an amended complaint
addressing the deficiencies outlined in this Order and without attaching an excessive
number of exhibits. Ms. Waddle is to file the amended complaint within 21 days of this
Order, or by August 7, 2025. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the
dismissal of this action without prejudice to refiling and without further warning by the
Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing dismissal of an action if “the plaintiff fails
to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”); see also Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte
for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘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 17th day of July 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00768-JD Document 10 Filed 07/17/25 Page 3 of 3