Logan v. Doe

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that plaintiffs second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 6) and his motion for extension of time (Docket No. 7 ) are DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 8/3/17. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

TAVIONLOGAN,
Plaintiff,

v.
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:17-cv-1494-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the filing of an amended complaint by plaintiff
Tavion Logan, proceeding prose and informa pauperis. For the reasons stated below, this case
will be dismissed, without prejudice.
Procedural History

Plaintiff filed an original complaint in this Court on May 8, 2017, alleging violation of
his civil rights. He named four fictitious defendants. The complaint included a long, rambling
narrative full of conclusory statements. Upon initial review, the Court noted that the complaint
was subject to dismissal because plaintiff named only fictitious parties without including facts
sufficient to permit their identification following reasonable discovery, and because plaintiff had
merely described actions taken by groups of people rather than setting forth allegationl') that any
defendant was directly involved in or personally responsible for violating his rights.

In

consideration of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court gave him the opportunity to submit an
amended complaint. In so doing, the Court clearly explained why the complaint was subject to
dismissal, and clearly instructed plaintiff how to remedy the defects. The Court advised plaintiff
that he was required to follow Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

clearly explained that this included setting forth short and plain statements showing that he was
entitled to relief. The Court specifically instructed plaintiff to sign the amended complaint
before returning it to the Court, and warned him that his case would be dismissed if he failed to
file an amended complaint as instructed. Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint, which the
Court now reviews pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Amended Complaint

The amended complaint is legally frivolous, and it fails to remedy the defects of the
original complaint. It should therefore be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The
amended complaint sets forth plaintiffs allegations in the same long, rambling fashion as in the
original.

It names only fictitious parties without alleging facts sufficient to permit their

identification following reasonable discovery, and it fails to set forth factual allegations that any
John Doe defendant was directly involved in or personally responsible for violating his rights.
Instead, plaintiff merely refers to groups of people, and concludes that they collectively violated
his rights. In addition, plaintiff did not sign the amended complaint. It is obvious that plaintiff
made no attempt to follow Rules 8 and 10, or the Court's instructions.
The situation before the Court is one in which plaintiff chose to prepare his amended
complaint in much the same manner as the original after being told why the original was subject
to dismissal. The rules of pleading are simple. Plaintiff was given clear instructions how to
remedy the defects, and warned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to comply. While the Court recognizes the necessity of affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction, this does not mean that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. US.,
508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Nothing permits the conclusion that plaintiff would follow the

2

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Court's instructions if he were again allowed to submit
an amended pleading.

For all of these reasons, the Court will dismiss this action, without

prejudice. Mangan v. Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal of
amended complaints for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 where district court gave
express warning), Fitzwater v. Ray, 352 F. App'x 125, 126 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (district
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing action without prejudice when the pro se
plaintiffs failed to comply with an order "directing them to file within fourteen days an amended
complaint in conformity with Rule 8"); see also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir.
1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with
any court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

A

separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that plaintiffs second motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (Docket No. 6) and his motion for extension of time (Docket No. 7) are
DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 3rd day of August, 2017.

ROSS
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3