Dunahue v. Payne

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION REGINALD DUNAHUE PLAINTIFF ADC # 106911

V. No. 2:23-CV-165-JM-JTR DEXTER PAYNE, Director, ADC; SARAH SANDERS, Governor; WILLIAM STRAUGHN, Deputy Director, ADC; MOSES JACKSON, Warden, Brickey’s Unit, ADC; CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Deputy Warden, Brickey’s Unit, ADC; TYRONE ALLISON, Major, Brickey’s Unit, ADC; SHIRLEY BELL, Captain, Brickey’s Unit, ADC; MORIEON KELLY, Lieutenant, Brickey’s Unit, ADC; LEAVY WATSON, Lieutenant, Brickey’s Unit, ADC; FRANKLIN GRAHAM, Sergeant, Brickey’s Unit, ADC; T. WESTBROOK, Sergeant, Brickey’s Unit, ADC; MAURICE CULCLAGER, Warden, Brickey’s Unit, ADC DEFENDANTS

ORDER

The Court has received a Recommendation for dismissal from Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray, along with timely objections. In his objection, Dunahue argues that pursuant to Cooper v. Schiro, 189 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 1999) his Amended Complaint should not be dismissed. In Cooper, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s preservice dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim. The Court noted,

We agree with defendants that Cooper's amended complaint, viewed without reference to the original complaint, does not state a claim for relief. . .. It seems clear, however, that Cooper intended to have the two complaints read together. . .. In any event, we believe Cooper's original complaint is lengthy not because he failed to state his claims concisely or in compliance with Rule 8, but because he named so many defendants. Cf. Tatum v. Iowa, 822 F.2d 808, 810 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (“While all pleadings are to be construed to do substantial justice ... the pleading must at a minimum be sufficient to give the defendant notice of the claim.”).

Cooper, 189 F.3d at 783. (internal citation omitted). As United States Magistrate Judge Ray stated in the Recommended Disposition, “the allegations in the original Complaint are not organized by claim or defendant, but are sprinkled throughout the 309 pages Dunahue incorporates by reference.” Even when considering the original complaint as referenced by the Amended and Substituted Complaint, Dunahue does not give the defendants notice of the claims against them. He has failed to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8. After careful review of the objections and a de novo review of the Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in its entirety. 1. Defendants Sanders, Johnson, Allison, Bell, Kelly, Watson, Graham, Westbrook, and Culclager are TERMINATED as parties to this action. 2. Dunahue’s Amended and Substituted Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED, without prejudice. 3. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2023. JUDGE