Hinds v. United States Government

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Hybrid Pleading Making a Conscientious Effort to Comply with Courts Orders Manifesting an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 44 ) is construed as an amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant United States Governments Motion to Strike Filings or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of time (ECF No. 51 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within sixty (60) days of this O rder. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs First Motion to Review, Alter, Amend, or Vacate Orders Pursuant to Plaintiffs Free Exercise of Pure Speech of Religious Beliefs and/or, in the Alternative, For Relief from Orders Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(6) (ECF No. 38 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will change the Cause listed on the docket sheet to reflect that the matter is brought pursuant to § 1983. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will mail a blank civil cover sheet and civil nature of suit code descriptions sheet to Plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 07/11/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRY LEE HINDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-750 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant United States Government’s
Motion to Strike Filings or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time. ECF No. 51. In
its motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff Terry Lee Hinds’ June 14 Filings (ECF Nos.
44 and 45), if construed as an amended complaint, should be stricken for failure to
comply with Rule 8. In the alternative, if the Court were to construe the June 14 Filings
as an amended complaint, Defendant requests 60 days to file responsive pleadings.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF No. 54-1. The Court will deny in part and grant in
part Defendant’s motion.
The purpose of Rule 8 is simply to give the opposing party fair notice of the nature
and basis or grounds of the claim and a general indication of the type of litigation
involved. Courts generally prefer to decide claims on their merits instead of on their
pleadings. Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, of Poplar Bluff, 167 F.3d 402, 409 (8th Cir.
1999). Therefore, a document filed pro se is to be liberally construed by the Court and
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). District courts may construe filings beyond their
description in the captions in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid
inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better
correspondence between the substance of a pro se filing and its underlying legal basis.
See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381–82 (2003) (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff argues that Rule 8 does not authorize the Court to construe the June 14
Filings as an amended complaint. However, “captions do not control” a filing if the body
of that filing presents a claim. See Estate of Snyder v. Julian, 789 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir.
2015). Upon review and liberal construction of the June 14 Filings, the Court construes
Plaintiff’s Hybrid Pleading Making a Conscientious Effort to Comply with Court’s
Orders Manifesting an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 44), and the attachments thereto,
as an amended complaint. Although Plaintiff’s Hybrid Pleading does not comply with
the Court’s orders to file a short, plain statement, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
sufficiently pled violations of his First Amendment rights to put Defendant on notice of
his claims and allow Defendant to file a responsive pleading. 1
However, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s originally-filed complaint, brief in
support, and exhibit list (ECF Nos. 1-3) have been stricken by the Court. ECF No. 8. As
a result, Plaintiff cannot incorporate those filings into his amended complaint. Therefore,
to the extent the amended complaint references Plaintiff’s previously-filed complaint,
brief and support, and exhibits, those provisions will be stricken.

1

ECF No. 44 and its attachments (Revelations Nos. 1 through 6) set forth
jurisdiction, venue, parties, and laws at issue.
2

The Court next turns to Defendant’s request for an extension. Given the length,
complexity, and difficult nature of the claims asserted by Plaintiff, the Court will grant
Defendant’s request for a 60-day extension to file a responsive pleading. Such an
extension will not unfairly prejudice Plaintiff, nor is there evidence that the extension was
requested in bad faith. Furthermore, this is Defendant’s first request for an extension in
this matter, and Plaintiff has been given several extensions by the Court to file his
amended complaint.
As a final matter, Plaintiff, in his Motion to Review, Alter, Amend or Vacate
Orders (ECF No. 38), sought relief from the Court’s previous orders requiring him to file
an amended complaint (ECF Nos. 8, 18, and 29). The Court has interpreted ECF No. 44
as an amended complaint. Therefore, the relief sought in Plaintiff’s Motion to Review,
Alter, Amend or Vacate Orders will be denied as moot.
The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s requests to change the “Cause” on the
Court’s docket sheet because “42:1981 Civil Rights” is an inaccurate representation of
his case. The Court will order the clerk of the court to update the “Cause” to reflect that
this matter asserts violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional (i.e. civil) rights, which may be
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
As to Plaintiff’s objections to the “Nature of Suit,” the Court finds that “440 Civil
Rights: Other” most accurately represents the claims brought by Plaintiff. However, the
Court will instruct the Clerk of the Court to mail to Plaintiff documents listing the
“Nature of Suit” codes and their descriptions. If Plaintiff wishes to assign a different
code to his case, he may file such a request, including the proper code, with the Court.
3

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Hybrid Pleading Making a
Conscientious Effort to Comply with Court’s Orders Manifesting an Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 44) is construed as an amended complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant United States Government’s
Motion to Strike Filings or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of time (ECF No. 51) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to file a
responsive pleading within sixty (60) days of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s First Motion to Review, Alter,
Amend, or Vacate Orders Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Free Exercise of Pure Speech of
Religious Beliefs and/or, in the Alternative, For Relief from Orders Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(6)” (ECF No. 38) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will change the
“Cause” listed on the docket sheet to reflect that the matter is brought pursuant to § 1983.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will mail a blank civil cover
sheet and civil nature of suit code descriptions sheet to Plaintiff.
Dated this 11th day of July, 2017.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4