Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Hoid v. KNOP-2 News

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Jul 22, 2026

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

EDWARD HOID,

Plaintiff - Appellant, v.

KNOP-2 NEWS; JASON MALTERUD, Longmont Police Department; JOSHUA BURKE, Longmont Police Department; RACHAEL SLOAN-STOGGSDILL, Longmont Police Department; JEFF SATUR, Longmont Police Department; ZACH ARDIS, Longmont Department of Public Safety; STANLEY JERIDO, Colorado Department of Corrections Division of Parole; RYAN DAY, Boulder County Deputy District Attorney; NANCY SALAMONE, Boulder County 20th Judicial District Court; BRUCE LANGER, Boulder County 20th Judicial District; NICOLE COLLINS, Attorney;

BENJAMIN COLLETT, Attorney; RYAN DAWSON-ERDMAN, Attorney; FOX-31 NEWS; ABC-7 NEWS; CBS-4 NEWS; NBC-9 NEWS; JON HIGH, Longmont Police Department; GRAY MEDIA GROUP, INC.; THE DENVER POST; LONGMONT TIMES-CALL; THE

DENVER GAZETTE; AMERICA'S

MOST WANTED; BALLARD SPAHR, LLP; ASHLEY KISSINGER; KENNISON LAY; SHERRI CLARK; MARK BAILEY, Denver District Court; ERIC ELLIFF, Denver District Court; GOOGLE; HAWTHORNE, Judge, Court of Appeals; FOX, Judge, Court of Appeals; LUM, Judge, Court of Appeals; JOHNSON, Judge, Court of Appeals; LIPINSKY, No. 25-1314

(D.C. No. 1:25-CV-01164-CMA-RTG) (D. Colo.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

July 22, 2026

Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 1

Judge, Court of Appeals; MOULTRIE, Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^*

_________________________________ Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges.^**

_________________________________ Plaintiff Edward Hoid, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court's order

(1) adopting a United States Magistrate Judge's (USMJ) recommendation, (2) dismissing without prejudice his second amended complaint (SAC) for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and (3) denying his motion to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) because it too fails to comply with Rule 8(a). The recommendation and order are attached hereto as "Attachment 1" and "Attachment 2"

respectively. Although difficult to discern from the 149-page SAC, Plaintiff appears to claim news publications' allegedly false reports that he beat a man to death together with the improper conduct of government officials (police, attorneys, and judges) violated federal law and caused him redressable harm. Our jurisdiction arises under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We summarily affirm. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 2

Among other things, Rule 8(a) states that a complaint "must contain . . . "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In recommending that the district court dismiss Plaintiff's SAC for failure to comply with Rule 8, the USMJ ably described the SAC. The USMJ observed that the SAC is 149-pages long and ends mid-sentence on the final page. The SAC lists 36 Defendants including news and media organizations, police officers, a deputy district attorney, defense attorneys, state court judges and officials, a law firm, and Google. The pleading contains 37 claims for relief including numerous claims for incitement, defamation, fraud, misprision, malicious prosecution, torture, collusion, and legal malpractice. Notably, the SAC fails to assert any claim against 12 of the named Defendants. The 68 pages of "Background" contains factual allegations that are "verbose, repetitive, and largely irrelevant to the specific claims[.]" Attachment 1 at 6. The USMJ then explained why the SAC failed to comply with Rule 8(a)(2):

Mr. Hoid fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claim that demonstrates he is entitled to relief. Instead, the [SAC] is unnecessarily long. The claims, and factual allegations in support of the claims, are vague, conclusory, repetitive, and verbose. And it is not clear what claims are being asserted against each Defendant. The lack of clarity regarding the specific claims being asserted, and the unnecessary length of the [SAC] are exacerbated by Mr. Hoid's failure to identify any logical relationship among all the named Defendants that would permit joinder in a single lawsuit.

Id. at 9-10. Upon de novo review, the district court overruled Plaintiff's objections to the USMJ's recommendation, adopted it, and dismissed the action. The court also denied Plaintiff leave to file his 172-page TAC because it suffered from the same defects as the SAC and so too failed to comply with Rule 8.

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 3

Where a district court has taken the proper measure of a case and articulated a cogent rationale for its decision, it serves no useful purpose for us to write at length. Suffice to say we have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal, including Plaintiff's SAC and proposed TAC, the USMJ's recommendation, Plaintiff's objections thereto, and the district court's final order. We have also thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff's appellate brief (in which he accuses the district court of committing "felonious acts"), and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). We affirm the district court's judgment substantially for the reasons set forth in the USMJ's recommendation and the district court's order adopting that recommendation and dismissing this action without prejudice. We grant Plaintiff's motion to proceed

IFP.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION TO PROCEED IFP GRANTED. Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 4

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 5

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 6

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 7

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 8

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 9

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 10

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 11

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 12

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 13

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 14

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 15

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 16

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 17

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 18

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 19

Appellate Case: 25-1314 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 07/22/2026 Page: 20