FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

DEC 2 1999

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT E. TRACY, Acting in Behalf of Petitioner’s Wife and Sons,

	Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

	Defendants-Appellees.
	No. 99-6231
(W. District of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. CIV-98-885-M)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

	After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  The court therefore orders the case submitted without oral argument.
	Plaintiffs, Robert Earl Tracy, his wife, and his children (collectively “Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se,  filed a complaint on June 25, 1998 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.  The United States and the Department of Justice were named as defendants (“Defendants”).  The complaint, which is virtually incomprehensible, contains references to a plethora of constitutional provisions which Plaintiffs claim were violated by Defendants.  In addition to the federal claims alluded to in the complaint, Plaintiffs also allege wrongdoing by state and local officials in the states of California, Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas and to wrongs purportedly committed against them by family members.
	Defendants filed a Motion for More Definite Statement or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss.  The district court held that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Rules 8(a)(1) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The district court also concluded that, even if Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint, they would be unable to file a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends.  Accordingly, the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.  Additionally, the district court enjoined Plaintiffs from filing further lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma unless they are represented by an attorney admitted to practice before that court or unless they first obtain leave of the court.  Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint.
	This court is required to construe all pleading filed by Plaintiffs liberally.  See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).  However, Plaintiffs’ appellate brief, like their complaint and other pleadings, is vague, disjointed, and replete with sentence fragments and conclusory statements.  Although Plaintiffs’ pleadings reference violations of  several Amendments to the United States Constitution and “many more of the U.S. Codes,” it is impossible to discern the exact bases of Plaintiffs’ claims.  Plaintiffs do not provide any coherent details of the acts underlying those violations, including the dates on which they occurred.  Even construed liberally, Plaintiffs’ pleadings fail to meet even the minimal requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.  
	Upon de novo review of Plaintiffs’ pleadings, the district court’s Order dated March 8, 1999, and the entire record on appeal, this court affirms the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s Order. 
							ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

							Michael R. Murphy
							Circuit Judge