Reasonable Page Limits and Rule 41 Dismissal for Rule 8 Noncompliance: The Tenth Circuit’s Affirmance in Sullivan v. Graham

Introduction

In Sullivan v. Graham, consolidated appeals Nos. 23-3153 and 23-3154, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (per curiam) affirmed the dismissal without prejudice of two sprawling pro se civil actions arising out of the plaintiff’s long-running disputes following a 2012 workplace injury. The panel—Judges Tymkovich, Baldock, and Matheson—held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by:

Imposing and enforcing reasonable page limits on amended complaints;
Dismissing the actions without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for failure to comply with Rule 8’s pleading standards and with court orders; and
Denying appointment of counsel where the record did not show “extreme” circumstances causing fundamental unfairness.

The court also rejected arguments aimed at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), explaining that the district court did not rely on that statute, and deemed waived a bias argument raised for the first time in a reply brief. Although the order and judgment is nonprecedential, it is citable for its persuasive value and clarifies practical boundaries on pro se pleadings, docket management, and discretionary review of civil appointment-of-counsel requests in the Tenth Circuit.

Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed two district court judgments dismissing without prejudice the federal claims in Mr. Sullivan’s cases after he repeatedly failed to comply with Rule 8 and with court-ordered page limitations. The district court had:

Denied Rule 12 motions without prejudice and directed clearer, shorter amended pleadings;
Set a page limit (first 40 pages, then 50 pages) and extended filing deadlines twice;
Received proposed second amended complaints of 105 pages (each), which exceeded the cap and, independently, contained “rambling and incoherent” allegations insufficient under Rule 8; and
Dismissed the federal claims under Rule 41 without prejudice, declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims, and alternatively noted that many claims were repeats of earlier litigation dismissed by the district court and affirmed by the Tenth Circuit.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion the three challenged rulings—imposition of page limits, Rule 41 dismissal without prejudice, and denial of appointed counsel—and found none. The court emphasized that:

Dismissals without prejudice under Rule 41 need no special procedures;
Reasonable page limits are permissible and were independently supported here by Rule 8 deficiencies; and
Appointment of counsel in civil cases is reserved for “extreme” circumstances, not present on this record.

Finally, arguments about the constitutionality of § 1915(e)(2) were inapposite because the district court did not dismiss under that statute, and a bias claim raised only in a reply brief was waived.

Background

Mr. Sullivan commenced two separate pro se actions in the District of Kansas—No. 2:22-cv-02319-SRB (appeal No. 23-3153) and No. 2:22-cv-02491-SRB (appeal No. 23-3154)—naming more than forty defendants and alleging conspiracy, fraud, and related theories stemming from a January 2012 workplace injury. In each case:

The original complaints were lengthy (93 and 81 pages).
The district court denied defense Rule 12 motions without prejudice and ordered clearer amended complaints, advising that a compliant amended pleading likely need not exceed 40 pages.
After two extensions, Mr. Sullivan filed amended complaints exceeding those bounds and adding new defendants; the court dismissed newly added parties and ordered a second amended complaint capped at 50 pages.
On the deadlines, Mr. Sullivan sought leave to exceed the page limit and tendered 105-page proposed second amended complaints.
The court denied leave to exceed the cap and dismissed the actions under Rule 41, concluding the pleadings were “rambling and incoherent” and failed Rule 8. It declined supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims, and alternatively noted substantial overlap with previously dismissed claims affirmed on appeal.
Rule 59(e) motions (also requesting appointment of counsel) were denied.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007): The court relied on Nasious for the proposition that a district court may dismiss without prejudice under Rule 41 “without attention to any particular procedures.” This undergirded the affirmance of the procedural propriety of the dismissals here, particularly given the district court’s measured attempts to obtain compliant, shorter pleadings.
Timmerman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 483 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2007): Timmerman validates the imposition of reasonable page limits. Citing Timmerman, the panel emphasized that page caps are a permissible docket-management tool, especially when pleadings are prolix and noncompliant. The district court’s independent Rule 8 assessment further supported the result.
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1995), and McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836 (10th Cir. 1985): These cases frame the high bar for appointing counsel in civil cases—reserved for “extreme cases” where lack of counsel would result in fundamental unfairness. The panel, after reviewing the record, found no such circumstances and upheld the denials.
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005): Cited to explain that while courts liberally construe pro se filings, they do not serve as counsel for pro se parties. This principle directly informed the Rule 8 analysis and the district court’s enforcement of pleading rules.
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, 872 F.3d 1094 (10th Cir. 2017): The panel applied the waiver rule that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not considered, disposing of Mr. Sullivan’s late-raised bias argument in No. 23-3154.
Sullivan v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Nos. 22-3118 & 22-3193, 2023 WL 4635888 (10th Cir. July 20, 2023): The panel referenced its prior decision characterizing Mr. Sullivan’s “wide-ranging litigation efforts” regarding his 2012 injury. The district court cited the overlap as an alternative ground for dismissal; while the panel did not need to reach preclusion, the reference contextualized the repetitive nature of the claims.
Federal and local rules: The court noted Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G) (submission without oral argument) and clarified the nonprecedential status consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Jurisdiction was under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis is grounded in three abuse-of-discretion reviews, each applying established standards:

Dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41 for Rule 8 noncompliance: The district court concluded the allegations were “rambling and incoherent” and did not state any federal claim consistent with Rule 8’s “short and plain statement” requirement. After giving multiple opportunities, guidance on length, and extensions, the court dismissed the federal claims without prejudice and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. Under Nasious, a district court may enter such an order without special procedures, and the panel held there was no abuse of discretion.
Imposition and enforcement of page limits: The district court initially suggested 40 pages and then capped at 50 pages for second amended complaints. Mr. Sullivan tendered 105-page proposed pleadings and sought leave to exceed the cap. Citing Timmerman, the panel reaffirmed that reasonable page limits are permissible and, independently, emphasized the district court’s conclusion that the proposed complaints failed Rule 8 regardless of length—an alternate and sufficient basis to deny leave and dismiss.
Denial of appointed counsel: The panel reiterated that appointment of counsel in civil cases is reserved for “extreme cases” where denial would result in fundamental unfairness (McCarthy), and it found no such circumstances on this record (Rucks). Given the district court’s latitude, guidance to the pro se litigant, and the nature of the deficiencies (Rule 8 and noncompliance with court orders), denial of counsel was within discretion.

The court also dealt summarily with two additional points:

Arguments about § 1915(e)(2): Mr. Sullivan challenged the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as applied to him and to disabled litigants. The panel observed that the district court did not dismiss under § 1915 in either case, rendering those arguments inapplicable.
Waiver: A bias argument first raised in Mr. Sullivan’s reply brief in No. 23-3154 was deemed waived under In re Motor Fuel Temperature.

Impact and Practical Significance

Although nonprecedential, Sullivan v. Graham has practical, persuasive value across several recurring litigation issues:

Docket management and “shotgun” pleadings: The decision reinforces that district courts may use page limits and Rule 12(e) orders to steer pro se litigants toward concise, Rule 8-compliant pleadings. Failure to comply, after guidance and extensions, can warrant dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41.
Pro se does not mean exempt: Liberal construction of pro se filings does not excuse noncompliance with procedural rules. Courts will enforce Rule 8 and court orders even in pro se cases, and repeated, incoherent, or duplicative filings risk dismissal.
Appointment of counsel remains exceptional: Civil litigants should not expect appointed counsel absent “extreme” circumstances leading to fundamental unfairness. Difficulty pleading complex or voluminous facts is not, by itself, an extreme circumstance.
Strategic appellate focus: Arguments untethered to the district court’s actual grounds for dismissal (e.g., attacks on § 1915 where § 1915 was not invoked) will not aid reversal. New arguments raised only in reply will be deemed waived.
Alternative grounds and repetitive litigation: While the panel did not need to reach preclusion, the district court’s observation that the complaints substantially repeated previously dismissed claims signals that duplicative re-pleading may face swift dismissal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 8(a) “short and plain statement”: Complaints must clearly and concisely state what the defendant did wrong and how the plaintiff was harmed, allowing the court and defendants to understand the claims.
Rule 41 dismissal without prejudice: A case can be dismissed for failure to comply with rules or court orders. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal is not on the merits; the plaintiff may refile, subject to applicable limitations periods and other defenses.
Page limits: Courts can set reasonable page caps to ensure clarity and manageability. Seeking leave to exceed them requires a showing of genuine need; exceeding caps does not cure Rule 8 deficiencies.
Supplemental jurisdiction: When all federal claims are dismissed, a court may decline to decide remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Appointment of counsel in civil cases: There is no general right to counsel in civil litigation. Courts appoint counsel only in rare cases where the absence of counsel would be fundamentally unfair.
Waiver in appellate practice: Arguments must be raised in opening briefs. New points made for the first time in a reply are typically not considered.
Nonprecedential orders and judgments: This decision is not binding precedent except under doctrines like law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. It may be cited for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Conclusion

Sullivan v. Graham confirms, in clear and practical terms, three enduring principles in federal civil practice within the Tenth Circuit:

District courts may impose and enforce reasonable page limits on pleadings, including in pro se cases, to vindicate Rule 8’s clarity requirements and manage their dockets.
When a litigant, after guidance and opportunities to amend, submits incoherent and noncompliant pleadings, dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41 is a permissible exercise of discretion without special procedural prerequisites.
Civil appointment of counsel remains exceptional; absent extreme circumstances leading to fundamental unfairness, denial will be affirmed.

For litigants and practitioners, the case is a reminder that clarity and concision are not mere formalities—they are jurisdictional and procedural gateways. For district courts, it affirms the tools available to manage complex, repetitive, or unwieldy filings. Even as a nonprecedential disposition, the opinion’s reasoning will be a persuasive touchstone for handling overlong, opaque pleadings and for calibrating when dismissal and denial of counsel are appropriate.

Case: Sullivan v. Graham; United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Nos. 23-3153 & 23-3154; filed July 17, 2025; per curiam; jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; submitted without oral argument under Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).