Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02288/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02288-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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. 05-2288

___________

Bryan Croft, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Larry Rowley; Jim Moore; Steve Long; *

Chris Taylor; Leslie Carsey; Homer * [UNPUBLISHED]

Shrum; Ken Carlton; Richard Watson; *

Michelle Actman, in their individual *

and official capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 18, 2006

Filed: August 23, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Bryan Croft appeals the district court’s1

 grant of defendants’

motion to dismiss his complaint and the court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e) motion, in his suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.

Appellate Case: 05-2288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2006 Entry ID: 2081329
-2-

Having reviewed the record and appellate submissions, we agree that Croft

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); AbdulMuhammad v. Kempker, 450 F.3d 350, 351-52 (8th Cir. 2006), and we also find no

abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of Croft’s post-judgment motion,

see United States v. Metro St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006)

(standard of review). We note, however, that both the dismissal of Croft’s section

1983 claims for failure to exhaust, and the dismissal of his state-law claims after the

district court chose not to exercise jurisdiction, should have been without prejudice.

See Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1998)

(modifying dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies to be dismissal

without prejudice); Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996)

(per curiam) (modifying dismissal to reflect that state-law claims over which district

court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction were dismissed without prejudice).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal and the denial of post-judgment relief, but

we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2006 Entry ID: 2081329