Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02063/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02063-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2063

___________

General Parker, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

David Porter, Officer, * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Appellee, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Shiela Whirley; John Essner, Judge; *

Shevon Harris; Brian Dunlop; Jeffrey *

Medler; Mia Brodie; Nancy Emmel, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: April 5, 2007

Filed: April 19, 2007 

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

General Parker appeals from the district court’s1

 Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Officer David

Appellate Case: 06-2063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2007 Entry ID: 3300614
-2-

Porter. Upon de novo review, see Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007), we

conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Parker’s complaint,

notwithstanding the liberal standard applied to pro se section 1983 complaints. See

Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993) ("Civil rights pleadings are construed

liberally[, but] they must not be conclusory and must set forth facts which state a

claim as a matter of law."); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985)

("Although it is to be construed liberally, a pro se complaint must contain specific

facts supporting its conclusions."). Further, we find no abuse of discretion in

dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and without notifying Parker that he could

amend his complaint, especially given that–despite a show-cause order and the

passage of more than six months–Parker never addressed the merits of Porter’s motion

to dismiss. See Meehan v. United Consumers Club Franchising Corp., 312 F.3d 909,

913-14 (8th Cir. 2002) (district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to invite

amended complaint when plaintiff had not moved to amend and had not submitted

proposed amended complaint; "[a]ll civil litigants are required to follow applicable

procedural rules"); Clayton v. White Hall Sch. Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir.

1985) (dismissal with prejudice is warranted if plaintiff engaged in pattern of

intentional delay, willfully disobeyed court order, or persistently failed to prosecute

complaint).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2007 Entry ID: 3300614