Sullivan v. Graham: Tenth Circuit Clarifies District Courts’ Discretion over Page-Limits, Rule 8 Compliance, and Counsel Appointment for Pro Se Litigants

Introduction

The consolidated appeals in Sullivan v. Graham, Nos. 23-3153 and 23-3154 (10th Cir. July 17, 2025), offered the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit an opportunity to restate and sharpen three doctrinal points that frequently arise in federal civil practice:

The breadth of a district court’s inherent authority to impose page-length restrictions on pleadings.
The circumstances under which a district court may dismiss a complaint—particularly a pro se complaint—without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and other procedural directives, using Rule 41(b).
The standard governing appointment of counsel in civil cases and the deferential abuse-of-discretion review on appeal.

Scott B. Sullivan, proceeding without counsel, sued over forty individuals, entities, judges, and law firms for an alleged multi-year conspiracy connected to a 2012 workplace injury. After repeated failures to produce a concise, coherent amended pleading within court-ordered page limits, the district court dismissed both actions without prejudice and denied Sullivan’s post-judgment requests for appointed counsel. The Tenth Circuit affirmed on all grounds.

Summary of the Judgment

Page-Limit Orders Affirmed: The panel held that the district court acted within its discretion in capping amended complaints at fifty pages and refusing leave to exceed that limit when Sullivan tendered 105-page proposals.
Dismissal under Rule 41(b) Affirmed: Because the pleadings remained “rambling and incoherent” and failed to state a claim under Rule 8(a), dismissal without prejudice was proper even absent further procedural steps.
Denial of Appointed Counsel Affirmed: The lack of “extreme circumstances” or fundamental unfairness justified denial of Sullivan’s civil appointment request.
Collateral Arguments Rejected: Constitutional challenges to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and new allegations of judicial bias, raised too late, were deemed inapposite or waived.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel leaned heavily on four prior decisions:

Timmerman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 483 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2007) – Confirmed the reasonableness of page-limit orders as a case-management tool. The court analogized the present limits to those previously approved in Timmerman.
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) – Established that a district court may dismiss a complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with Rule 8 without additional procedures. The panel quoted this holding verbatim.
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) – Reiterated both the liberal construction accorded pro se pleadings and the limits of appellate deference, cautioning courts not to become de-facto counsel.
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1995) & McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836 (10th Cir. 1985) – Articulated the “extreme circumstances” standard for appointing counsel in civil matters.

By stitching these authorities together, the panel created a coherent framework: (i) page limits are permissible; (ii) when a plaintiff refuses to comply, dismissal without prejudice is a valid sanction; and (iii) the absence of counsel in routine civil litigation, even for disabled litigants, is not fundamentally unfair absent further showings.

B. Legal Reasoning of the Court

Standard of Review – Abuse of Discretion: Each challenged ruling—page limits, Rule 41(b) dismissal, denial of counsel—falls within the district court’s case-management discretion. The appellate court looked only for a clear abuse, finding none.
Rule 8(a) and Pleading Coherence: The court underscored that pro se status does not excuse compliance with Rule 8’s “short and plain” statement mandate. When a complaint balloons to 177 pages (or 105 pages post-editing) and remains unintelligible, Rule 8 is violated.
Inherent Authority and Rule 41(b): Citing Nasious, the panel reiterated that courts may dismiss non-compliant pleadings without prejudice sua sponte, without elaborate procedural hurdles, as part of their obligation to manage dockets and protect defendants from untenable, inscrutable allegations.
Appointment of Counsel: The court evaluated (a) the merits of the claims, (b) plaintiff’s ability to present his case, and (c) the complexity of the issues. The fatal combination—implausible claims, demonstrated ability to file voluminous papers, and non-complex legal theories—defeated the request.
Waiver & Irrelevance: Arguments first raised in reply briefs (e.g., judicial bias) or directed at statutes not employed in the dismissal (§ 1915) were summarily rejected under established waiver and relevancy doctrine.

C. Potential Impact of the Judgment

Although the order is “non-precedential” under 10th Cir. R. 32.1, it carries persuasive force in three primary areas:

Practical Toolkit for District Courts: Reinforces confidence that reasonable page-limit orders—particularly after giving a litigant multiple chances—are well within judicial discretion.
Guidance for Pro Se Litigants: Serves as a cautionary tale: verbosity and incoherence are not virtues; failure to heed court directives invites dismissal regardless of substantive grievances.
Civil Counsel Appointments: Re-emphasizes that disability or complexity alone does not compel appointment where claims appear legally or factually baseless.
Litigation Management: Affirms the judiciary’s inherent power to curtail sprawling, serial litigation and conserve judicial resources without infringing on access to the courts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim” to give defendants fair notice and allow courts to judge plausibility. Lengthy, convoluted pleadings violate this rule.
Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Allows a court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with the rules or court orders. Dismissal “without prejudice” means the plaintiff may re-file—though practical obstacles (e.g., statutes of limitation) may arise.
Page-Limit Order: An administrative directive capping the length of pleadings or briefs. Grounded in the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and ensure efficient, focused litigation.
Pro Se Litigant: A party who represents himself or herself without an attorney. Courts afford some leeway but do not craft arguments or rewrite pleadings for such litigants.
Appointment of Counsel (Civil): Unlike criminal defendants, civil litigants have no constitutional right to free counsel. Courts may appoint one only in “extreme” circumstances—e.g., indigence coupled with meritorious, complex claims and demonstrable inability to proceed alone.

Conclusion

Sullivan v. Graham crystallizes the Tenth Circuit’s pragmatic stance on docket management. The decision demonstrates that:

Reasonable page limits are a valid prophylactic against sprawling, unintelligible pleadings.
Persistent non-compliance with Rule 8 and court orders justifies dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b), even absent the procedural formalities that accompany with-prejudice terminations.
Appointment of counsel in civil litigation remains the exception, not the rule, reserved for truly extraordinary situations.

While technically non-precedential, the ruling will serve as persuasive authority for litigants and courts within and beyond the Tenth Circuit. It underscores a simple yet powerful message: clarity, brevity, and adherence to procedural directives are essential to maintaining one’s footing in federal court.