Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02695/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02695-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2695

___________

William G. Carter, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Timothy Nelson, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

Michael Goddard; Richard J. Giese; *

James L. Ellis, *

*

Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Carl. E. McDonald, Jr., * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Plaintiff, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

v. *

*

Keith Schafer; Felix Vincenz; Karen *

Adams; Alan Blake; Rebecca Semar; *

Jay Englehart; Linda Meade; Dr. *

John Rosenboom, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 28, 2008

Filed: April 17, 2008 

___________

Appellate Case: 07-2695 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2008 Entry ID: 3424711
1

Co-plaintiffs Timothy Nelson and Carl E. McDonald, Jr., did not sign the

notice of appeal or the renewed IFP application, and are not parties to this appeal.

-2-

Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William G. Carter, Michael Goddard, Richard J. Giese, and James L. Ellis

(plaintiffs),1

 civilly committed residents of the Missouri Sexual Offender Treatment

Center (MSOTC), appeal the district court’s preservice dismissal of their 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action. They also seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

We grant IFP status, affirm in part, and reverse in part.

We conclude that dismissal of the action as to Mr. Carter was proper. First,

contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments on appeal, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

apply to all persons proceeding IFP and are not limited to prisoner suits, and the

provisions allow dismissal without service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Calhoun

v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (§ 1915(e)(2)(B) is not

limited to prisoners and is applicable to civilly detained persons). Further, we agree

with the district court that the history and circumstances surrounding the complaint

support dismissal of Mr. Carter’s claims for maliciousness: it appears that Mr. Carter

has filed at least thirty separate complaints since 2003, and a number of these cases

raise issues that are the same as or are substantially similar to those in the instant case,

against the same defendants. See Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1316-17 (4th Cir.

1996) (en banc) (upholding § 1915 dismissal when plaintiff attempted to relitigate

claim; plaintiff’s past litigious conduct informs court’s discretion under § 1915);

Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993) (upholding maliciousness

dismissal because action constituted repetitive litigation); see also Green v. Jenkins,

80 F.R.D. 686, 687-88 (W.D. Mo. 1978) (dismissing civil rights case as “malicious”

when initiated in bad faith for purposes of harassment; plaintiff had longstanding

Appellate Case: 07-2695 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2008 Entry ID: 3424711
-3-

pattern of abusive and repetitive lawsuits, and, in instant case, set forth numerous

claims previously presented in prior actions).

We also reject plaintiffs’ argument that the district court abused its discretion

in failing to appoint counsel for plaintiffs. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d

791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review and factors to consider).

After determining that Mr. Carter’s claims were malicious, the district court

concluded that the remaining plaintiffs were “not properly joined” and that dismissal

was appropriate as to these remaining plaintiffs “pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.” We

find no authority for dismissal on this basis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (plaintiffs may

join an action if they (1) assert any right to relief “arising out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”; and (2) “any question of law or

fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“Misjoinder

of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal as to Mr. Carter, reverse the dismissal as

to Mr. Goddard, Mr. Giese, and Mr. Ellis, and remand to the district court for further

proceedings. On remand, the district court may require the remaining plaintiffs to file

an amended complaint, not drafted by Mr. Carter, which sets forth only those claims

that relate to these three plaintiffs.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2695 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/17/2008 Entry ID: 3424711