F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS March 20, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
TIM O TH Y D O YLE Y O U N G,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 06-1494 v. (D. Colorado) U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA; (D.C. No. 06-CV-1253-ZLW ) U N ITED STA TES D EPA RTM ENT O F JU STIC E; FED ER AL B UR EAU OF PRISONS; ALBERTO GO NZA LES, Atty. General; HA RLEY LAPPIN, BO P Director; HA RRELL W ATTS, Appeals Administrator; M ICHAEL NALLEY, Regional D irector - N CR ; D A RY L K O SIAK, Regional Counselor - NCR; M R. W ERLICK, Previous Unit M anager; R. W ILEY, W arden - AD X; CA PT. BAUER, Health Systems A dm inistrator; M S. B AILEY , Psychologist; M R. COLLINS, Unit M anager; M R. SUDLOW , Case M anager; M R . H A Y G OO D , Counselor; M R. DEA KINS, Recreation Supervisor; M R. BELLANTONI, Education Supervisor; M S. REAR, Adm. Remedy Coordinator; M S. HAY S, Adm. Remedy Clerk; M S. PA RSO NS, Law Library W orker,
Defendants - Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before L UC ER O, HA RTZ, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Timothy Young appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claim for
failure to amend his complaint as ordered. Because the court’s order to amend
relied, at least in part, on exhaustion doctrine that has since been abrogated, see
Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007), we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
I. B ACKGR OU N D
On June 29, 2006, M r. Young filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado against 17 individual defendants (including the
United States Attorney General), the U nited States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
and the United States Department of Justice. The number of defendants was
matched by the number of claims— 21 in total. He asserted violations of his
rights under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, the Freedom of Information
Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Privacy Act. One claim,
spanning 16 pages, set forth what amounted to a timeline detailing what he
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-2- alleged was a wide-ranging conspiracy to deprive him of his right of access to the
courts. He also alleged that he had exhausted his administrative remedies and
that “copies of grievance, FO IA, and Tort remedies are attached.” R. Vol. 1 Doc.
3-2 at 10. M any of his claims included details of his efforts to obtain redress
within the prison administrative system, but stated that his efforts to exhaust had
been thwarted by prison officials, a lack of clarity in the Code of Federal
Regulations, and prison program statements that prevented him from
understanding the appropriate procedure for bringing and exhausting his various
claims. His claims did not contain separate requests for relief; rather, at the end
of the complaint he sought injunctive and declaratory relief relating to grievance
procedures, “an expanded and lenient discovery process,” and damages. Id. at 11.
Because of the difficulty in discerning w hich claims were asserted against
which defendants, the magistrate judge issued what appears to be a form order
that M r. Young cure the deficiency that “names in caption do not match names in
text.” Id. Doc. 2. at 2. Asserting that the magistrate judge’s order was unclear
and that therefore he could not comply, M r. Young filed eight motions, including
a “M otion to Strike Order to Cure Deficiency,” a “M otion for Clarification,” a
second “M otion for Clarification” filed three days after the first, a “Relief from
Order Rule # 60(b)” motion, and a “Rule 62: Stay” motion. M r. Young attached
to several of these motions a list of the defendants w ith claim numbers next to
-3- each name and asserted that he was unable to find the error in his original
complaint. The magistrate judge denied all his motions.
M r. Young then responded to the order by submitting new pages replacing
pages 2 and 2b of his complaint. Finding this attempt inadequate, on August 21,
2006, the magistrate judge issued a second order directing him to file within 30
days an amended complaint complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
The magistrate judge tried to guide M r. Young on how to improve his complaint,
instructing that the purpose of a complaint is to “give the opposing parties fair
notice of the basis for the claims against them” and “allow the court to conclude
that the allegations, if proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Id.
Doc. 33 at 2. He pointed out that M r. Young’s complaint failed to set forth a
short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and contained unnecessary
facts. The magistrate judge directed him to amend the complaint to “set forth all
of his claims in a concise and simple manner.” Id. at 3. He then explained that
M r. Young could not assert any claims relating to prison conditions until he had
exhausted his administrative remedies; in his amended complaint M r. Young
would have to demonstrate that he had exhausted his administrative remedies with
respect to each claim, and attach documents in an ordered fashion showing such
exhaustion, or his entire complaint would be dismissed under our holding in Ross
v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004).
-4- On September 8 M r. Young filed a motion entitled “Ex Parte Objections to
Order to File an Amended Complaint.” He stated that his complaint was not too
long because it amounted to only about two pages for each of the 20 defendants,
that he had found nothing defining what short meant under Rule 8, and that he
had merely followed the instructions on the forms on which he had filed his
complaint, which directed him to set forth the facts he “consider[ed] important,
including the dates and the specific facts.” R. Vol. 1 D oc. 38 at 3 (emphasis,
ellipsis, and internal quotation marks omitted). He also contended that the short-
and-plain-statement requirement was a minimum, not a maximum, and that he had
included more detail in his fraud, deception, fraudulent-concealment, and
misrepresentation claims because Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 required him to do so.
Finally, he stated that he could not discern from the magistrate judge’s order what
the defects in his complaint were, and that he would reserve his right to amend it
once they became apparent.
The district court denied his objection on September 15, 2006, and ordered
him to file an amended complaint within 30 days or his action would be
dismissed. M r. Young filed three more motions but did not file an amended
complaint. The court dismissed his complaint without prejudice on October 25,
2006, for failure to comply with its order to file an amended complaint.
M r. Young appealed.
-5- II. D ISC USSIO N
W e review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal without
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS March 20, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
TIM O TH Y D O YLE Y O U N G,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 06-1494 v. (D. Colorado) U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA; (D.C. No. 06-CV-1253-ZLW ) U N ITED STA TES D EPA RTM ENT O F JU STIC E; FED ER AL B UR EAU OF PRISONS; ALBERTO GO NZA LES, Atty. General; HA RLEY LAPPIN, BO P Director; HA RRELL W ATTS, Appeals Administrator; M ICHAEL NALLEY, Regional D irector - N CR ; D A RY L K O SIAK, Regional Counselor - NCR; M R. W ERLICK, Previous Unit M anager; R. W ILEY, W arden - AD X; CA PT. BAUER, Health Systems A dm inistrator; M S. B AILEY , Psychologist; M R. COLLINS, Unit M anager; M R. SUDLOW , Case M anager; M R . H A Y G OO D , Counselor; M R. DEA KINS, Recreation Supervisor; M R. BELLANTONI, Education Supervisor; M S. REAR, Adm. Remedy Coordinator; M S. HAY S, Adm. Remedy Clerk; M S. PA RSO NS, Law Library W orker,
Defendants - Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before L UC ER O, HA RTZ, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Timothy Young appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claim for
failure to amend his complaint as ordered. Because the court’s order to amend
relied, at least in part, on exhaustion doctrine that has since been abrogated, see
Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007), we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
I. B ACKGR OU N D
On June 29, 2006, M r. Young filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado against 17 individual defendants (including the
United States Attorney General), the U nited States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
and the United States Department of Justice. The number of defendants was
matched by the number of claims— 21 in total. He asserted violations of his
rights under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, the Freedom of Information
Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Privacy Act. One claim,
spanning 16 pages, set forth what amounted to a timeline detailing what he
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-2- alleged was a wide-ranging conspiracy to deprive him of his right of access to the
courts. He also alleged that he had exhausted his administrative remedies and
that “copies of grievance, FO IA, and Tort remedies are attached.” R. Vol. 1 Doc.
3-2 at 10. M any of his claims included details of his efforts to obtain redress
within the prison administrative system, but stated that his efforts to exhaust had
been thwarted by prison officials, a lack of clarity in the Code of Federal
Regulations, and prison program statements that prevented him from
understanding the appropriate procedure for bringing and exhausting his various
claims. His claims did not contain separate requests for relief; rather, at the end
of the complaint he sought injunctive and declaratory relief relating to grievance
procedures, “an expanded and lenient discovery process,” and damages. Id. at 11.
Because of the difficulty in discerning w hich claims were asserted against
which defendants, the magistrate judge issued what appears to be a form order
that M r. Young cure the deficiency that “names in caption do not match names in
text.” Id. Doc. 2. at 2. Asserting that the magistrate judge’s order was unclear
and that therefore he could not comply, M r. Young filed eight motions, including
a “M otion to Strike Order to Cure Deficiency,” a “M otion for Clarification,” a
second “M otion for Clarification” filed three days after the first, a “Relief from
Order Rule # 60(b)” motion, and a “Rule 62: Stay” motion. M r. Young attached
to several of these motions a list of the defendants w ith claim numbers next to
-3- each name and asserted that he was unable to find the error in his original
complaint. The magistrate judge denied all his motions.
M r. Young then responded to the order by submitting new pages replacing
pages 2 and 2b of his complaint. Finding this attempt inadequate, on August 21,
2006, the magistrate judge issued a second order directing him to file within 30
days an amended complaint complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
The magistrate judge tried to guide M r. Young on how to improve his complaint,
instructing that the purpose of a complaint is to “give the opposing parties fair
notice of the basis for the claims against them” and “allow the court to conclude
that the allegations, if proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Id.
Doc. 33 at 2. He pointed out that M r. Young’s complaint failed to set forth a
short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and contained unnecessary
facts. The magistrate judge directed him to amend the complaint to “set forth all
of his claims in a concise and simple manner.” Id. at 3. He then explained that
M r. Young could not assert any claims relating to prison conditions until he had
exhausted his administrative remedies; in his amended complaint M r. Young
would have to demonstrate that he had exhausted his administrative remedies with
respect to each claim, and attach documents in an ordered fashion showing such
exhaustion, or his entire complaint would be dismissed under our holding in Ross
v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004).
-4- On September 8 M r. Young filed a motion entitled “Ex Parte Objections to
Order to File an Amended Complaint.” He stated that his complaint was not too
long because it amounted to only about two pages for each of the 20 defendants,
that he had found nothing defining what short meant under Rule 8, and that he
had merely followed the instructions on the forms on which he had filed his
complaint, which directed him to set forth the facts he “consider[ed] important,
including the dates and the specific facts.” R. Vol. 1 D oc. 38 at 3 (emphasis,
ellipsis, and internal quotation marks omitted). He also contended that the short-
and-plain-statement requirement was a minimum, not a maximum, and that he had
included more detail in his fraud, deception, fraudulent-concealment, and
misrepresentation claims because Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 required him to do so.
Finally, he stated that he could not discern from the magistrate judge’s order what
the defects in his complaint were, and that he would reserve his right to amend it
once they became apparent.
The district court denied his objection on September 15, 2006, and ordered
him to file an amended complaint within 30 days or his action would be
dismissed. M r. Young filed three more motions but did not file an amended
complaint. The court dismissed his complaint without prejudice on October 25,
2006, for failure to comply with its order to file an amended complaint.
M r. Young appealed.
-5- II. D ISC USSIO N
W e review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal without
prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8. See Kuehl v. FDIC, 8 F.3d 905, 908–
09 (1st Cir. 1993). Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading set forth a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a). One purpose of a complaint is to give the defendant enough information
about the alleged wrong to be able to respond to those allegations. See Mann v.
Boatright, No. 05-1559, 2007 W L 476268, at *5 (10th Cir. 2007). Another is to
allow the court to determine whether, if the facts alleged were proved, the
plaintiff would be entitled to relief. See Monument Builders of Greater Kansas
City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Assn. of Kan., 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989).
Both goals can be accomplished in a short and plain statement. “W hat is a short
and plain statement depends, of course, on the circumstances of the case.” See
M ountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Labs., 630 F.2d 1383, 1387 (10th Cir. 1980)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
M r. Young complains that his complaint was deemed deficient because he
“gave too much detail.” Aplt. Br. at 11. But excessive detail is not the
problem— irrelevant detail obfuscating the claim is. M r. Young’s pleadings
demonstrate that he has sufficient intelligence to state briefly for each claim (1)
who is being sued, (2) w hat each person did, and (3) how those acts injured him.
-6- The shortcomings of M r. Young’s complaint and his failure to comply with
the district court’s order to file an amended complaint would ordinarily be ample,
even compelling, justification for the court’s dismissal of his complaint without
prejudice. But the legal landscape changed after that dismissal. No longer must a
prisoner’s complaint establish exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Jones,
127 S. Ct. at 921. This change affects the case before us in two respects. First,
one ground for the order to amend the complaint was that M r. Young had
inadequately alleged exhaustion. Second, much of the confusing detail in the
complaint apparently is an effort to explain his failure to exhaust. In this
circumstance we believe that rather than affirming the judgment (which was
proper when entered), the better course is to remand to permit M r. Young another
opportunity to state his claims in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. W e caution M r. Young, however, that continued obstructive conduct,
such as filing repetitive and frivolous motions, will forfeit his opportunity to file
an amended complaint. He would be wise to file no further pleading except a
proper amended complaint.
III. C ON CLU SIO N
W e REVERSE and REM AND to the district court with instructions to give
M r. Young the opportunity to file one additional pleading— namely, an amended
complaint complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If the amended
complaint so complies, the case should proceed in the normal fashion.
-7- M r. Young’s “M otion for Relief” and “En Banc M otion for Leave to File
M andamus Petition” are DENIED. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. W e remind M r. Young of his obligation to continue making partial
payments until he has paid the entire appellate filing fee.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
-8-