Eugene Kenneth Jones v. Pollard-Buckingham , 348 F.3d 1072 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-2695
    ___________
    Eugene Kenneth Jones,                 *
    *
    Appellant,               *
    *
    v.                             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Eastern
    Alice Pollard-Buckingham; Carl        * District of Missouri.
    Gilmore; Dennis L. Blackman; Chuck *
    Cox; Herbert M. Casey, Atp., security *
    staff; Vanessa Loyd; John Williams;   *
    Raqueal Dawson; Victor Stewart;       *
    Richard Dixon, Mr.; Edward            *
    Bushmeyer; Jerome Fields; Percy       *
    Harrington; Michael McKinney;         *
    Unknown Diggs, Mrs., classification   *
    staff; Unknown Starks, Co. #1;        *
    Unknown Johnson; Unknown Lynzey; *
    Unknown Rhodes, Mr.; Unknown          *
    Chancelor, medical staff; Unknown     *
    Lorenzo,                              *
    *
    Appellees.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: September 5, 2003
    Filed: November 12, 2003
    ___________
    Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
    Missouri inmate Eugene Kenneth Jones appeals the district court’s dismissal,
    without prejudice, of his civil rights action. We grant Mr. Jones leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis, and we reverse.
    Mr. Jones brought this 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action pro se and in forma pauperis
    against various employees and officials at the St. Louis Medium Security Institution.
    Using a court-supplied form complaint, Mr. Jones listed nine individual defendants
    and attached three pages reciting his allegations, in narrative form. The district court
    twice ordered Mr. Jones to file amended complaints, instructing him to identify in the
    complaint’s caption the name of each defendant he wished to sue, and, in the body of
    the complaint, to “list each defendant named in the caption of the complaint, and
    below his or her name briefly set forth the specific factual allegations supporting his
    claim against the particular defendant, as well as the specific rights that he claims the
    defendant violated.”
    Mr. Jones filed amended complaints after each order, each complaint growing
    in length and number of named defendants. In his second amended complaint, he
    named fifteen individual defendants and attached thirteen handwritten pages
    describing in detail the events underlying his claims, and explaining how each
    defendant was involved. The district court observed that Mr. Jones’s statement of
    claim seemed to reflect that there were additional, unnamed defendants, and that
    Mr. Jones had not complied with its direction to separately list, in the statement of
    claim, each defendant’s name followed by specific factual allegations against that
    defendant. The court thus dismissed the action, without prejudice, under Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with its order.
    We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing
    Mr. Jones’s complaint. See Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 
    135 F.3d 1216
    ,
    -2-
    1219 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review). Although the complaint was in narrative
    form, Mr. Jones’s recitations clearly identified how each defendant was involved in
    the conduct about which he complains, which is all the federal rules require. See Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (complaint must include only “short and plain statement of the
    claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema,
    
    534 U.S. 506
    , 512 (2002) (complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the
    plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
    
    355 U.S. 41
    , 47 (1957))); Haines v. Kerner, 
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520-21 (1972) (per curiam)
    (pro se complaints are entitled to liberal construction). To the extent the complaint
    contains allegations against individuals not named as defendants, the district court
    may refuse to allow Mr. Jones to proceed against those individuals, having warned
    him repeatedly about the need to identify the individuals he wished to sue in the
    complaint’s caption.
    Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court for further
    proceedings. We deny Mr. Jones’s other pending motions.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-2695

Citation Numbers: 348 F.3d 1072

Judges: Arnold, Fagg, Melloy

Filed Date: 11/12/2003

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024