In McNamara v. Brauchler, 570 F. App’x 741 (10th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-1534), plaintiff sued several Colorado state officials over attorney-disciplinary proceedings brought against him.  Plaintiff’s 169-page complaint covered a wide variety of unrelated subjects, including an alleged conspiracy among Colorado judges and district attorneys, and the prosecution of his traffic tickets.  The court dismissed the complaint, finding that it failed to comply with FRCP 8’s pleading requirements because it contained numerous irrelevant and inappropriate statements, launchedad hominem attacks on defendants and others, and failed to precisely articulate plaintiff’s claims.  The court ordered plaintiff to submit an amended complaint, instructing him to state each claim separately, to identify the defendant(s) against whom each claim was brought, and to avoid conclusory and irrelevant allegations and attacks.  Plaintiff responded by filing a 132-page amended complaint that was riddled with the same problems as the initial complaint.  The court concluded that plaintiff had failed to comply with its order, and dismissed the action as a sanction.  The Tenth Circuit affirmed.  The court found that plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8 – requiring a “short and plain statement” of the claims – actually prejudiced defendants because it would force them to comb through more than a hundred pages of distracting and irrelevant detail to determine which allegations warranted a response.  The court concluded that the remaining requirements for sanctions were met, particularly given that the court had tried to help plaintiff by telling him what his complaint must (and must not) include, and had warned him that failure to comply might result in dismissal.