Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02895/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02895-0/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. 15-2895

___________________________

Todd James Luh

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Fulton State Hospital; John Lyskowski, Doctor; John Brown, Nurse; Robby

Morris, Head of Security/Biggs Unit; Curtis Jacobs, FSH former employee;

Heather Putt, Nurse; Pat Oney, Nurse; Shelly Salmons, Nurse; Tammy Olsen;

Nurse Cassandra Sailor, Nurse; Mary Pearson, Nurse; Rocky Martin, FSH former

employee; Ed Bucklew, Doctor; Delbert Groves, Social Worker; Chad Graham,

Recreational Therapist; Sara Poettgen, FSH former employee; Cheryl Maddox,

Director of Nursing; Rita Thackeray, FSH Dietitian; Bruce Harry, Doctor; Russ

DeTremp, Director of Biggs; Marty Martin-Forman, C.O.O.; Dr. Chernoff, Doctor;

Jill Morales, Biggs former Head of Security; Robert Hamilton, FSH former

employee; Angela Wright, FSH former employee; Garrett Wilson, Nurse; Tenlay

Watson, Head Nurse; Dr. Ponce, Doctor; Dr. Sethy, Doctor; Jenifer Millikin,

Nurse;SueBradford,Nurse;DebbieThompson,FSHemployee;KimSouth,FSHemployee

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________

 Submitted: December 29, 2015

Filed: January 11, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Appellate Case: 15-2895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2016 Entry ID: 4354581 
Before MURPHY, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Todd James Luh, a mental patient at Fulton State Hospital (FSH), appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and denial of his

post-judgment motion to reopen his case. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, this court grants Luh leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), affirms in part,

reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings.

This court concludes that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). See Mangan v. Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir.

1988) (abuse-of-discretion review). Although Luh’s complaints named numerous

defendants and were at timesrepetitive, the claims were reasonably concise, detailed,

and direct, and sufficiently placed each defendant on notice of the nature of the

claims against him. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) (each allegation made in pleading

must be simple, concise, and direct); Jones v. Pollard-Buckingham, 348 F.3d 1072,

1072 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (13-page handwritten narrative complaint did not

violate Rule 8, as it still clearly identified how each defendant was involved in

allegedly unconstitutional conduct); Oglala Sioux Tribe ofIndians v. Andus, 603 F.2d

707, 714 (8th Cir. 1979) (purpose of Rule 8 requirements is to give defendant fair

notice of nature, basis, and grounds of complaint); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam) (pro se complaints entitled to liberal construction).

Nevertheless, much ofthe complaint wassubject to dismissal for failure to state

a claim. See Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir. 2013) (court of appeals

may affirm dismissal on any basis supported by record). This court holds, however, that

Luh successfully stated two claims. Luh stated a retaliation claim based on his

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2016 Entry ID: 4354581 
allegations that defendants Lyskowski, Brown, Putt, Oney, Salmons, Olsen, Sailor,

Pearson,Bucklew, Groves, Graham, Poettgen, Maddox, Thackeray, Harry, DeTremp,

Morales, Hamilton, Wright, and Wilson, in retaliation for Luh’s complaints,

grievances, and lawsuits, (1) directed other patientsto assault him; (2) falsely accused

him of rule violations and placed him in seclusion; (3) intentionally denied him or

interfered with his necessary medical treatment; and (4) prevented him from going to

his job so he could not earn money to support his litigation activities. Cf. Santiago

v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984, 991-92 (8th Cir. 2013) (to establish § 1983 retaliation claim,

prisoner must establish that he engaged in protected activity, that government official

took adverse action against him that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from

continuing the protected activity, and that the adverse action was motivated at least

in part by the exercise of the protected activity). 

Luh also stated an inadequate-nutrition claim based on his allegations that he

lost weight and strength and suffered complications to his health because defendants

Thackeray, Harry, and Chernoff provided him smaller portions than he medically

needed and served him food that was dirty and not fit for human consumption. See

Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992) (prisoners have right to

nutritionally adequate diet).

The judgment is vacated as to the retaliation claims against defendants

Lyskowski, Brown, Putt, Oney, Salmons, Olsen, Sailor, Pearson, Bucklew, Groves,

Graham, Poettgen,Maddox,Thackeray,Harry,DeTremp,Morales,Hamilton, Wright,

and Wilson; and as to the inadequate-nutrition claims against defendants Thackeray,

Harry, and Chernoff. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. 

The case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-2895 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/2016 Entry ID: 4354581