Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01485/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01485-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1485

___________

Patrick L. McDowell, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

D. Dawson; Shoup; Bucker; Pettus; * Western District of Missouri.

Barts; Ballinger; Joe Hoffmeister; J. *

Wade; Supt. Michael Bowersox; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Missouri Department of Corrections, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 27, 2007

Filed: March 2, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri prisoner Patrick McDowell appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against several defendants: the Missouri

Department of Corrections (MDOC) and correctional officers Dawson, Shoup, and

Pettus, functional unit managers Buckner (sued as “Bucker”) and Wade, staff

members Barts, Ballinger, and Hoffmeister, and superintendent Bowersox, all of the

South Central Correctional Center. We grant McDowell leave to appeal in forma

Appellate Case: 06-1485 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2007 Entry ID: 3284188
-2-

pauperis, deny all other pending motions, and, for the reasons that follow, affirm in

part and reverse and remand in part.

We conclude that the district court properly dismissed McDowell’s claims

against MDOC, because it is not a “person” under section 1983, see Alsbrook v. City

of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1010 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc), against Barts, because

McDowell failed to serve him, see Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 830-31 (8th

Cir. 2003), and against Buckner, Wade, Ballinger, Hoffmeister, and Bowersox,

because McDowell made only conclusory allegations that they denied his rights to due

process. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

The district court dismissed without prejudice McDowell’s claims against

Dawson, Shoup, and Pettus on the ground that McDowell had not demonstrated that

he exhausted administrative remedies for all of his claims against all of the

defendants. As to these claims, we reverse and remand for further consideration in

light of Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 919-26 (2007). While it is unclear whether

McDowell needed to name all three of these defendants in his administrative

grievances to proceed against them on his intertwined claims, see id. at 923, the

Supreme Court has now declared that courts should not dismiss all of a prisoner’s

claims when his exhaustion of remedies is incomplete. See id. at 925-26. In the

instant case, the district court acknowledged that McDowell had exhausted certain

claims, but concluded under law of this circuit prior to Jones that the case should be

dismissed. We remand the case in light of Jones and leave for the district court to

determine in the first instance which of McDowell’s claims against these three

defendants are properly exhausted. See id. at 923.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1485 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2007 Entry ID: 3284188