Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02739/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02739-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2739

___________

Matthew K. Holleran, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Kenneth Gibson; Andrew Bachelor; *

Gary J. McMullin, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Mike Baker, Sheriff; Chris Allen, Jail * Eastern District of Missouri

Administration; Fred Vahle, Chief *

County Commissioner; Arden * [UNPUBLISHED]

Engelage, County Commissioner; Ken *

McLaughlin, County Commissioner, *

*

Appellees, *

*

Unknown Hoffman, Warren County *

Sheriff’s Department Major, *

*

Defendant, *

*

John Doe; Jane Doe, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 30, 2004

Filed: September 15, 2004

___________

Appellate Case: 03-2739 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811288 
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

-2-

____________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Holleran appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. For

reversal, appellant argues that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint. For

the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Holleran brought this complaint on April 30, 2003, naming six defendants and

“several unknown John Does and Jane Does,” and alleging civil rights violations

arising out of his incarceration at the Warren County Jail (Jail). Specifically, he

alleged that some defendants denied him access to the courts. Also, he was locked

down for twenty-three hours a day without receiving a conduct violation, and when

he told defendant “Mr. Hoffman,” a Warren County Sheriff’s Department officer, on

the first night he was locked down that he intended to sue the Jail, Hoffman placed

the entire pod on lock-down and stated that “as long as [they] were locked down,

[they] couldn’t sue.”

The district court dismissed the court-access claims under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), but ordered service on defendant Hoffman as to the lock-down

claim. A summons was issued; however, it was returned unexecuted because

Hoffman was no longer employed with the Warren County Sheriff’s Department. The

district court notified Holleran about the failed attempt to serve Hoffman, and

directed him to provide the district court clerk with Hoffman’s correct address within

ten days. Holleran failed to do so, and on July 30, the court dismissed the claim

Appellate Case: 03-2739 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811288 
-3-

against Hoffman without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for lack of timely

service of process. This timely appeal followed.

Upon de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000)

(per curiam), we affirm. First, we find that the district court properly dismissed the

court-access claims, because Holleran failed to allege an actual injury, i.e., that a

“nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.” See Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53 (1996). Second, we find no abuse of discretion in the

district court’s dismissal without prejudice of the complaint against Hoffman, because

Holleran failed to comply with the court’s order directing him to provide Hoffman’s

correct address within ten days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district court may dismiss

action if plaintiff has failed to prosecute, or has failed to comply with procedural rules

or any order of court); Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th

Cir. 1998). Finally, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying appointment of counsel. See Edgington v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 52 F.3d 777,

780 (8th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2739 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811288