Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01413/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01413-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1413

___________

Lateca Williams, Individually and *

on behalf of the Heirs at Law of *

Teca Jordan, Deceased, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Scott Bradshaw, in his individual * Western District of Arkansas.

capacity; Ty Basiliere, in his individual *

capacity; Clint Tedford, in his individual *

capacity; City of Nashville, Arkansas; *

Howard County, Arkansas, *

*

Appellees. *

*

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2006

Filed: August 16, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and DOTY,1

 District Judge.

___________

Appellate Case: 06-1413 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2006 Entry ID: 2078776
2

 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

-2-

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Lateca Williams appeals the order of the district court2

 granting the defendants'

motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as its order denying her motion to

amend her complaint. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Ms. Williams's mother, Teca Jordan, died while in police custody. Two years

later, Ms. Williams sued the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that their

conduct had violated Ms. Jordan's rights under the eighth and fourteenth amendments.

The Arkansas statute of limitations period for personal injury suits is three years, see

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105(3), and that limitations period applies to § 1983 actions

filed in Arkansas that allege a physical injury. Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736,

739 (8th Cir. 2001). In answering the complaint, one of the defendants maintained

that Ms. Williams did not have standing to bring suit.

Once the limitations period expired, all of the defendants moved for judgment

on the pleadings, arguing that Ms. Williams lacked standing. Federal courts are to

apply state law in deciding who may bring a § 1983 action on a decedent's behalf. See

42 U.S.C. § 1988(a); Andrews v. Near, 253 F.3d 1052, 1056-57 (8th Cir. 2001).

Under Arkansas law a wrongful-death action may be brought only by a personal

representative or, if there is no personal representative, by the decedent's heirs at law.

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-102(b). The plaintiff listed in the caption of the original

complaint is "Lateca Williams, Individually and on Behalf of the Heirs at Law of Teca

Jordan, Deceased." Ms. Williams was not the estate's personal representative when

she filed the complaint, and Arkansas law states that "[i]f there is no personal

representative of the deceased person, then the action shall be brought by all the heirs

at law of the deceased." Ramirez v. White County Circuit Court, 343 Ark. 372, 381,

38 S.W.3d 298, 303 (2001). Since Ms. Jordan's other heirs were not listed as plaintiffs

Appellate Case: 06-1413 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2006 Entry ID: 2078776
-3-

to the action, the defendants contended that the complaint did not meet the

requirements of § 16-62-102(b).

After the defendants filed their motion, Ms. Williams sought to amend her

complaint to reflect her new legal status as special administratrix of the estate and to

raise additional claims. The defendants argued that despite the liberal amendment

policy of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), the district court should deny the motion. Because the

original complaint did not comply with § 16-62-102(b), the argument ran, it was

rendered a "nullity" under Arkansas law, see Rhuland v. Fahr, 356 Ark. 382, 390-92,

155 S.W.3d 2, 8-9 (2004), and thus there was no complaint to amend.

The district court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings

and denied Ms. Williams's motion to amend. We review a judgment on the pleadings

de novo. Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 2006). We will affirm

only if Ms. Williams can prove no set of facts in support of her claim that would

entitle her to relief. See, e.g., Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.,

404 F.3d 1297, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 567 (2005); cf. Botten

v. Shorma, 440 F.3d 979, 980 (8th Cir. 2006). We review the district court's denial

of a motion to amend for an abuse of discretion. United States ex rel. Joshi v. St.

Luke's Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 555 (8th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed,

75 U.S.L.W. 3009 (U.S. Jun 30, 2006) (No. 06-12).

Because a wrongful-death action is a creature of statute in derogation of the

common law, Arkansas courts narrowly construe the statute in determining if a

complaint states a claim. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Circuit Court of Craighead

County, 348 Ark. 197, 206, 73 S.W.3d 584, 589 (2002). The Arkansas wrongfuldeath statute has been interpreted to mean that only one action can be brought for the

death sued upon, Brewer v. Poole, 362 Ark. 1, 11, __ S.W.3d __ (2005), and where

no personal representative has been appointed, that action must be brought by all of

the decedent's heirs at law, Ramirez, 343 Ark. at 381, 38 S.W.3d at 303; Ark. Code

Appellate Case: 06-1413 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2006 Entry ID: 2078776
-4-

Ann. § 16-62-102(b). Ms. Williams argues that her original complaint met that

requirement by "identifying and asserting claims on behalf of all heirs at law." But

bringing a claim on a person's behalf and having that person bring the claim on his or

her own are two very different things.

Ms. Williams maintains that all of the heirs were indeed parties to the action.

She points to the fact that the complaint named all of Ms. Jordan's heirs when it

described who had been injured by the defendants' actions. We find this argument

unavailing. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the title of the action in a

complaint "shall include the names of all the parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); see also

Ark. R. Civ. P. 10(a). While a caption is not determinative as to who is a party to a

suit, Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 1985), we think that it is entitled

to considerable weight when determining who the plaintiffs to a suit are since

plaintiffs draft complaints. In addition, the first two paragraphs of the complaint listed

the parties to the suit, but Ms. Williams is the only plaintiff mentioned. Finally, the

complaint refers repeatedly to only a singular "plaintiff." We therefore conclude that

the sole plaintiff in the original complaint was Ms. Williams and, because not all of

Ms. Jordan's heirs were joined as plaintiffs, Ms. Williams lacked standing. The

district court thus properly granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms. Williams's motion

to amend. When, as here, a complaint amounts to a nullity, it cannot serve as the

foundation for an amendment: Since the original complaint was without legal effect,

there was nothing to amend. Granting the motion to amend would have been

impossible. Cf. Jones ex rel. Jones v. Correctional Med. Servs., 401 F.3d 950, 952

(8th Cir. 2005); Brewer, 362 Ark. at 14-15, __ S.W.3d at __. And in considering the

amended complaint on its own, the district court correctly noted that its claims were

barred by the statute of limitations.

Appellate Case: 06-1413 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/16/2006 Entry ID: 2078776
-5-

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1413 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/16/2006 Entry ID: 2078776