Moyer v. Murray et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GREGORY ASHLEY MOYER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-429-SLP
)
JAMES V. MURRAY, Attorney at Law, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
O R D E R
Plaintiff, Gregory Ashley Moyer (Mr. Moyer), appearing pro se, has filed a First
Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 6] alleging violations of his rights under various federal
statutes to include: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (civil RICO); the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA).
The following Motions are currently pending before the Court: (1) Defendant
Collins, Zorn, & Wagner’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 13]; (2)
Defendant DHS’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Brief in
Support [Doc. No. 15]; (3) Defendant Former District Attorney Mike Fields’s Motion to
Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 17]; (4) Defendant District Attorney Laura
Thomas’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 20]; (5) Judicial Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 22]; (6) Defendant Melissa Griner
DeLacerda’s Motion to Dismiss with Brief in Support [Doc. No. 25]; (7) Defendant
Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No.
Case 5:25-cv-00429-SLP Document 44 Filed 07/11/25 Page 1 of 7

2
27]; (8) Stillwater School District Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
Motion for More Definite Statement, and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 32]; (9) Defendant
Sheriff Harper’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 39]; and (10) Defendant
James V. Murray’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Brief in Support [Doc.
43]. Plaintiff has not yet responded to these Motions. Nonetheless, the Court finds, in the
interest of judicial efficiency, that rather than address these pending Motions, the Court
will sua sponte DISMISS Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to comply with
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1
I. Background
Mr. Moyer names twenty-three Defendants. Mr. Moyer previously sued five of
these Defendants in an action arising from at least some of the same events as those alleged
in this action. See Moyer v. Corley, et al., Case No. CIV-21-817-C (W.D. Okla.) (Moyer
I).2
Mr. Moyer’s claims, very generally speaking, appear to have their genesis in family
law proceedings in the District Court of Payne County, State of Oklahoma. In Moyer I,
the Court identified those proceedings as occurring in 2017. See id., Order [Doc. No. 47]
1 Certainly, many of the Defendants’ pending Motions raise Rule 8 concerns. But the Court sua
sponte raises the issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See Sladek v. Bank of Am., NA, No. 24-
1181, 2024 WL 4224029 at *4 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2024); see also Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 and n. 2 (10th Cir. 2007) (“And, to be sure, a failure to
satisfy Rule 8 can supply a basis for dismissal: Rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a district court
to dismiss an action for failing to comply with any aspect of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.”).
2 Those Defendants are Katherine E. Thomas, Melissa Griner DeLacerda, Virginia Banks, Lisa
Thompson, and Retired Judge Phillip C. Corley.
Case 5:25-cv-00429-SLP Document 44 Filed 07/11/25 Page 2 of 7

3
at 2. Consistent with that finding, in this action Plaintiff references a “Final Divorce
Decree” issued on January 19, 2017, see First Am. Compl. at 16, and attaches a Journal
Entry [Doc. No. 6-1] entered on November 15, 2017 in Moyer v. Moyer, Case No. FD-
2015-456, District Court of Payne County, State of Oklahoma. Mr. Moyer also attaches to
his First Amended Complaint correspondence [Doc. No. 6-2] dated October and November
2017, about concerns he had with certain medical information being filed in the state-court
action.
Although Mr. Moyer’s claims have their genesis in these family-law proceedings,
his First Amended Complaint contains allegations that span the time frame 2015 to 2025
and involve a multitude of other actors and other events. His collective allegations and
narrative presentation, however, make it virtually impossible to identify the factual basis
for his legal claims or to determine which facts relate to which claims or to which
Defendants they relate.
II. Governing Standard
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Moyer’s First Amended
Complaint “must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is
entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), with allegations that are “simple, concise, and
direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). In other words, in accordance with Rule 8, Mr. Moyer
must “explain what each defendant did to him . . .; when the defendant did it; how the
defendant’s action harmed him . . .; and, what specific legal right [he] believes the
defendant violated.” Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1163.
Case 5:25-cv-00429-SLP Document 44 Filed 07/11/25 Page 3 of 7

4
Rule 8 serves two purposes. It gives opposing parties fair notice of the basis of the
claim(s) against them so that they may respond to the complaint. And, it apprises the court
of sufficient allegations to allow it to conclude, if the allegations are proved, that the
claimant has a legal right to relief. See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir.
2007). As the Tenth Circuit has explained:
Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix in
evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom
plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions
of a complaint.
Id.
Moreover, in cases, such as this one, where a complaint includes one or more claims
brought under § 1983 against multiple individual governmental actors, “it is particularly
important that the complaint make exactly clear who is alleged to have done what to whom,
to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claims against him or her.”
Bledsoe v. Carreno, 53 F.4th 589, 606 (10th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (emphasis added).
As a pro se litigant, Mr. Moyer is entitled to a liberal construction of his First
Amended Complaint. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But
even so, the Court must “disregard all conclusory statements of law and consider whether
the remaining specific factual allegations, if assumed to be true, plausibly suggest the
defendant is liable.” Kan. Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.
2011). Furthermore, a pro se litigant must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern
other litigants.” Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). And the Court will
Case 5:25-cv-00429-SLP Document 44 Filed 07/11/25 Page 4 of 7

5
not assume the role of advocate on behalf of a pro se litigant. See Kincaid v. Unified Sch.
Dist. No. 500, 94 F.4th 936, 947 (10th Cir. 2024).
III. Discussion
A. The First Amended Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 8(a)
Mr. Moyer’s First Amended Complaint (with attachments) is 115 pages long. As
in Mann, the “sheer length” of the pleading makes his claims “unintelligible.” Id., 477
F.3d at 1148. But other deficiencies exist as well. The pleading does not set forth any
claims for relief. As noted, instead, the pleading is largely presented in narrative fashion,
with lengthy, but ultimately conclusory, allegations. The pleading includes a heading
“STATEMENT OF CLAIM” but follows with 38 pages. See First Am. Compl. at 15-52.
Even the “requests for relief” are conclusory and set forth in a manner that no individual
defendant would be able to know the nature of the relief sought against him or her. See,
e.g., First Am. Compl. at ¶ 45 (“Plaintiff seeks individual declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief grounded solely in the harms personally sustained as a direct result of the
defendants’ unlaw acts.”); id. at ¶ 49 (“Compensatory damages exceeding $10,000,000 for
irreparable harm to familial relationships, emotional distress, loss of reputation, and
economic hardship directly resulting from Defendants’ violations.”).
Under these circumstances “not even the most attentive of readers could figure out
who did what to whom.” Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148. Accordingly, the Court finds that
dismissal of the First25-429 Amended Complaint is proper.
Case 5:25-cv-00429-SLP Document 44 Filed 07/11/25 Page 5 of 7

6
B. Leave to Amend
The Court will grant Mr. Moyer an opportunity to file a motion requesting leave to
file a second amended complaint.3 If Mr. Moyer so moves, he must comply with the
requirements of LCvR 15.1. Mr. Moyer is forewarned that failure to comply with the
Court’s local rules and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the denial of
any such motion. The Court further notes that it appears that many of Mr. Moyer’s claims,
as currently raised, may be barred by: (1) the applicable statutes of limitation; (2)
jurisdictional deficiencies; (3) collateral estoppel4; and/or (4) immunity from suit.5 Mr.
Moyer should be mindful of these issues should he seek leave to further amend his
pleading.
3 Leave of court is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
4 In his First Amended Complaint, Mr. Moyer acknowledges Moyer I. Id. at ¶ 6. But he claims it
was “dismissed without prejudice and did not result in a ruling on the merits.” Id. A review of
Moyer I demonstrates that Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on the following grounds: (1) statute
of limitations; (2) Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (3) Younger Abstention; (4) Failure to State a Claim;
(5) Individual Capacity; (6) Eleventh Amendment Immunity; (7) Oklahoma Governmental Tort
Claims Act; and (8) Judicial Immunity. See Order [Doc. No. 47]. The dismissal clearly
encompassed “ruling[s] on the merits.” Moreover, the Court specifically found that “[b]ecause no
amendment could cure the jurisdictional issues a separate Judgment will issue.” Id. at 11. To the
extent Mr. Moyer attempts to reassert those claims here, he is cautioned that “[i]ssue preclusion
applies even when a prior decision never reached the merits, that is, dismissals for lack of
jurisdiction preclude future relitigation of that jurisdictional question.” Boulter v. Noble Energy,
Inc., No. 23-1118, 2024 WL 1526289 at *3 (10th Cir. 2024); see also Park Lake Resources Ltd.
Liability v. U.S. Dept. of Agr. 378 F.3d 1132, 1135 (10th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that “dismissals
for lack of jurisdiction preclude relitigation of the issues determined in ruling on the jurisdiction
question” (cleaned up)).
5 This list is illustrative and in no way comprehensive or exhaustive.
Case 5:25-cv-00429-SLP Document 44 Filed 07/11/25 Page 6 of 7

7
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
[Doc. No. 6].
2. The Court DENIES as MOOT Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss
[Doc. Nos. 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25, 27, 32, 39 and 43].
3. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff 14 days from the date of this Order, or until
July 25, to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. If Plaintiff does
not move for leave to file a second amended complaint, the Court will enter a judgment of
dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00429-SLP Document 44 Filed 07/11/25 Page 7 of 7