Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01362/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01362-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1362

___________

Theodore Miller, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Bill Hedrick; James K. Wolfson; *

Bill Lewis; M. Cantrell; Mahmood * [UNPUBLISHED]

Choudhury; Zafahon, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 29, 2005

Filed: August 17, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Theodore Miller appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing his civil rights complaint against various prison officials. We grant Miller

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The judgment was not a final, appealable order, because it did not address all

named defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (creating appellate jurisdiction over final

decisions of district courts); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“order or other form of decision,

however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and

Appellate Case: 05-1362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2005 Entry ID: 1941173
-2-

liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the

claims or parties”). Whereas the district court’s order mentioned Bill Hedrick and

Robert McFadden only, the caption of Miller’s amended complaint indicated his

intent to sue additional defendants, and the body of the complaint sufficiently

identified these individuals. They included four defendants whom Miller named in

his original complaint and the district court continued to list as defendants on its

docket. Cf. Rice v. Hamilton Air Force Base Commissary, 720 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th

Cir. 1983) (“[A] party may be properly in a case if the allegations in the body of the

complaint make it plain that the party is intended as a defendant.”).

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Thomas v.

Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 522-24 (8th Cir. 1991) (appellate courts have obligation to

raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte “when there is an indication that jurisdiction is

lacking”; appeal was “clearly premature” where some claims were still pending).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2005 Entry ID: 1941173