Robert Joos v. Joe Schoeberal ( 1996 )

___________
No. 95-2134
___________
Robert Neil Joos, Jr., *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. *
*
Joe Schoeberal; Tim Perigo; *
Greg Stuemel; Ray J. Gordon; * Appeal from the United States
Don Schlessman; Bob Harper; * District Court for the
Steve Dorsey; Miles Parks; * Western District of Missouri.
Mike Rogers; Unknown Agents of *
the McDonald County Sheriff's * [UNPUBLISHED]
Dept.; Federal Bureau of *
Investigation; BAIF; Charles E. *
Hall; John Does, 1-100; J. Dan *
Conklin; McDonald County Phone *
Co., *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: February 15, 1996
Filed: March 4, 1996
___________
Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Robert Neil Joos, Jr. instituted this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against numerous defendants, asserting a myriad of conclusory claims. Upon
1
initial review of the complaint, the district court advised Joos that his
assertions were insufficient to give defendants fair notice of the nature
of his claims and the grounds
1
The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Missouri.
upon which they rested, and ordered Joos to cure this deficiency in an
amended complaint, warning him that his action would be dismissed if he did
not comply. Joos then filed a thirty-eight page amended complaint in which
he rambled on about a multitude of alleged violations, some dating back
sixteen years, and about a host of defendants, most of whom were
unidentified. The district court held that the amended complaint failed
to conform to the requirements set out in the court's earlier order, and
dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Joos appeals.
Complaints seeking damages against government officials must be
pleaded with sufficient specificity to put defendants on notice of the
nature of the claims. Edgington v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections, 52 F.3d
777, 779 (8th Cir. 1995). We believe the district court properly exercised
its discretion in dismissing Joos's amended complaint, as the prolixity of
the pleading made it difficult to discern the substance of Joos's claims.
See id. at 779-80 (standard of review; dismissal without prejudice
mitigates against abuse-of-discretion finding); cf. Mangan v. Weinberger,
848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988) (finding no abuse of discretion in
dismissal of amended complaint that was unreasonably verbose and
confusing), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1013 (1989).
We deny Joos's "Notice of Additional Defendants & Motion for Orders
to Secure [his] Rights."
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-