Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06210/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06210-0/pdf.json

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

---

• v 

,. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DELBERT C. MINNIS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

lt"'.f'lth Cirruit 

OCT 2 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-6210 

DAVID MOORE; STEVEN GENTLING; ) 

RICHARD CAMPBELL; DONNIETTA ) 

COOPER; FRANK SHERIDAN; CHARLES ) 

PAINTER and GARY FIELD, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-2047-T} 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant Delbert Minnis appeals prose from the 

district court's dismissal of his discrimination action. 

Interpreting Minnis 1 s prose complaint liberally as required under 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 519-20 (1972), his action appears 

to allege that he was discriminated against while he was employed 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After exam1n1ng the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6210 Document: 010110064913 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 1 
i 

at the Oklahoma City Veterans Administration Hospital. The 

district court found that Minnis failed to name the proper 

defendants either for a Title VII discrimination action, see 42 

u.s.c. § 2000e-16(d) or for a tort claim against defendants as 

employees of the United States government, see 28 u.s.c. 

§§ 271-80. Consequently, the district court concluded that it 

lacked any basis to assume jurisdiction and dismissed Minnis's 

action without prejudice. 

We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal 

and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district 

court in its order attached hereto. See Minnis v. Moore, CIV-89-

2047-T, unpub. order at 2 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 13, 1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6210 Document: 010110064913 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 2 
: 

-._,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

DELBERT C. MINNIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CIV-89-2047-T 

DAVID MOORE, et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

Defendants filed a Motion for More Definite Statement, or in 

the Alternative, to Dismiss. Plaintiff, appearing prose, has 

since filed First, Second, and Third Amended Complaints, as well 

as a response to defendants' motion. Defendants have renewed their 

motion as to the amended complaints. Defendants contend that 

plaintiff's complaints are nonsensical, and that defendants are 

unable to frame a responsive pleading. Defendants also correctly 

point out that plaintiff's complaints contain no statement of the 

grounds upon which this Court has jurisdiction. 

Plaintiffs complaints allege that plaintiff was the victim of 

various acts of discrimination while he was employed at the 

Veterans Administration Hospital in Oklahoma City. Plaintiff 

alleges that he filed formal complaints regarding some of the 

incidents, but that either no action was taken or that the charges 

were resolved in his favor. Plaintiff also alleges that he was 

forced to retire in 1989, in retaliation for his filing of complaints. 

To the extent that plaintiff alleges employment discrimination, he has failed to name the proper defendant. 42 u.s.c. 

Appellate Case: 90-6210 Document: 010110064913 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 3 
:,. 

- · - - · - -- § 2000e-16(c) provides that the head of the department, agency, or 

unit shall be the defendant. Plaintiff has not named as a defendant the head of the Veterans Administration. It is not clear if 

plaintiff is also attempting to sue under some tort theory, such 

as intentional infliction of emotional distress. If plaintiff is 

attempting to allege a tort claim against defendants as employees 

of the government, the United States is the proper defendant. See, 

~, Marrs v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254 (6th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff 

has not named the United States as a defendant. Because plaintiff's employment discrimination claim must be dismissed, there is 

no other basis for the Court to assume jurisdiction over a tort 

claim against the individual defendants. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed 

due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This dismissal is 

without prejudice. Should plaintiff wish to refile his complaint 

naming the proper defendant or defendants, he is advised that a 

complaint should contain a short and plain statement of the grounds 

upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain 

statement of the claims showing that he is entitled to relief, and 

a demand for judgment for the relief sought. Federal Rule of civil 

Procedure 8. A complaint should briefly state the acts complained 

of, whether administrative remedies have been pursued, and the 

status of any administrative claims which have been filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this /J p day of April, 1990. ' / 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

tIH'i:.i.'~~.::C ;.i,i _:.~::..: .... : .. . ,;. .. : ;i-/J- /..:. 

., 

Appellate Case: 90-6210 Document: 010110064913 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 4