IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Nina Y. Wang

Civil Action No. 24-cv-00350-NYW-MDB

DUSTIN MILES DAVIS, DUSTIN MILES SARGENT-DAVIS, C.M.S., C.R.H., E.M.H., and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY COURT, EL PASO COUNTY COLORADO, LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, BARRETT FRAPPIER & WEISSERMEN LLP, MARIA DENT, and DISTRICT COURT JUDGE THOMAS KELLY KANE,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Court’s Order to Show Cause, [Doc. 10], in which the Court ordered Plaintiff Dustin Miles Davis (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Davis”) to show cause, in writing, on or before April 1, 2024,1 why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for Mr. Davis’s failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

1 The Court notes that Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that three days be added to this deadline because service was made to Mr. Davis by mail pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(C). See [Doc. 11]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (“When a party may or must act within a specified time after being served and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) (mail) . . . 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).”). Procedure and this Court’s February 6, 2024, Order, [Doc. 6].2 Instead of explaining why the case should not be dismissed, Plaintiff has filed a second document titled “Bond for Temporary Restraining Order,” see [Doc. 12]; see also [Doc. 2 (“Bond for Temporary

Restraining Order”)], which suffers from the same deficiencies as his first document filed under that title, see [Doc. 2]. Because Plaintiff has not identified any grounds establishing why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Rule 8 and this Court’s February 6, 2024, Order, and has not otherwise complied with this Court’s directive that he file an Amended Complaint that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by

establishing the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, specifically identifying the claims he is asserting, and providing a clear, concise statement of specific facts that support each asserted claim, see [Doc. 6; Doc. 10], the Court dismisses this case without prejudice, see Rodriguez v. Nationwide Homes, Inc.,

, 785 (10th Cir. 2018) (“If a complaint fails to meet the[] basic pleading requirements, a district court may dismiss the action sua sponte for failure to comply with Rule 8.”); D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1

(“A judicial officer may issue an order to show cause why a case should not be dismissed for . . . failure to comply with . . . the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[] or a court order.

2 Because Plaintiff is proceeding without an attorney, the Court liberally construes his filings. See Haines v. Kerner,

, 520–21 (1972) (per curiam); Hall v. Bellmon,

(10th Cir. 1991). The Court, however, may not act as Mr. Davis’s advocate, see Hall,

, and observes that Plaintiff is bound by the same procedural rules and substantive law as a represented party, Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,

(10th Cir. 2005). If good cause is not shown, a district judge ... may enter an order of dismissal with or without prejudice.”). Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause [Doc. 10] is MADE ABSOLUTE. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. A copy of this Order shall be mailed to: Dustin Miles Davis 4555 South Calhan Highway Calhan, CO 80808

DATED: April 5, 2024 BY THE COURT: yh iy Y. Wang / ) United States District Judge