Gates v. Holliday et al

Filing 4

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

II.

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

1

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

3

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

2