Gates v. Holliday et al
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending 2 Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and that his 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot. Objections to R&R due by 10/29/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 10/14/08. (hph)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS W E S T E R N DIVISION E R C I L K. GATES # 8 8 6 4 -0 8 VS. D O C HOLLADAY, et al. R E C O M M E N D E D DISPOSITION I. P r o c e d u r e for Filing Objections: T h e following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Ju d g e Susan Webber Wright. Any party may file written objections to this re c o m m e n d a tio n . Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal b a sis for the objection. If an objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that f in d in g and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your o b je c tio n s must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later th a n eleven (11) days from the date you receive the Recommended Disposition. A copy w ill be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in w a iv e r of the right to appeal questions of fact. M a il your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: C lerk , United States District Court E a ste rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A-149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325 C A S E NO.: 4:08CV03590 SWW/BD DEFENDANTS P L A IN T IF F
I n tr o d u c tio n : P lain tiff , who is currently incarcerated at the Pulaski County Detention Facility
(" P C D F " ), filed a pro se Complaint (docket entry #2) under 42 U.S.C. §1983, along with a n Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1). For the following reasons, th e Court recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint (#2) be DISMISSED without prejudice, a n d his Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1) be DENIED as moot. III. D is c u s s io n : P la in tif f has filed a voluminous and confusing Complaint (#2) and Addendum (# 3 ) alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during the course of his detention a t the PCDF. The Complaint is one hundred twenty mostly single-spaced and h a n d w ritte n pages and contains twenty-four factually and legally distinct claims. A n u m b e r of pages appear to be grievances filed as exhibits to the Complaint.1 The A d d e n d u m presents additional factually and legally distinct claims and references "a w h o le lot of Grievances" that Plaintiff intends to file (#3).
It is no longer necessary for prisoners to attach proof of complete exhaustion to th e ir complaints, because exhaustion is an affirmative defense that must be pled and proved b y the defendants. See Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921 (2007); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005). Additionally, when screening a Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must accept all of Plaintiff's allegations to be true. See Haines v . Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1 9 8 5 ). Thus, there is no need for Plaintiff to attach exhibits to his Complaint. Instead, P la in tif f should provide exhibits only when necessary to support appropriate motions or re sp o n se s thereto. Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk to return Plaintiff's exhibits to him without filing them in the record. 2
T h e Complaint is in clear violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and (d), which require th a t a complaint contain a "short and plain statement" showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief and that the averments be "simple, concise, and direct." See also Trobaugh v. H y a tt, Case No. 04-2243, 2005 WL 775396 (8th Cir. April 7, 2005) (unpublished) (e x p la in in g that pro se inmates must comply with the pleading requirements set forth in F ed . R. Civ. P. 8(a) and (d)); Chandler v. Pogue, Case No. 02-2793, 2003 WL 943750 (8 th Cir. March 11, 2003) (unpublished) (holding that a trial court did not abuse its d is c re tio n when it dismissed a pro se inmate's complaint for failing to comply with Fed. R . Civ. P. 8). A d d itio n a lly, Plaintiff cannot defeat the filing fee requirements set forth in the P r is o n Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, by joining in one lawsuit a multitude of u n related and legally distinct claims. Given the nature of Plaintiff's pleadings, the Court c a n n o t complete the screening process mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; nor would it be p o ss ib le for the parties to complete discovery, file appropriate motions, or present this c a s e in a coherent manner. Accordingly, the Court recommends that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, s o that Plaintiff may bring his various claims in separate actions. If he wishes to pursue h is claims, Plaintiff must refile a separate complaint (and accompanying In Forma
P a u p e r is Application) for each factually and legally related claim. Complaints must c o m p ly with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.2 IV . C o n c lu s io n : T h e Court recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint (#2) be DISMISSED without p re ju d ic e , and that his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (#1) be DENIED as m o o t. DATED this 14th day of October, 2008.
____________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
For instance, Plaintiff might file separate complaints for: (1) conditions of c o n f in e m e n t claims; (2) First Amendment access to courts claims; (3) denial of Due Process a n d Equal Protection; and (4) failure to protect. 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?