Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02243/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02243-0/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. 04-2243

___________

Charles Arnold Trobaugh, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Kerry Hyatt, Community Corrections *

Manager; Van Racy, Contract * [UNPUBLISHED]

Specialist; Jill Bushaw, Correctional *

Counselor; Michael Skaggs, Probation *

Officer; Bruce Vander Sanden, *

Correctional Supervisor; Theresa C. *

Tometich, Probation Officer; Cynthia *

Dennis, Probation Officer; Jerri Allen, *

Probation Officer; Bobbi Peters, Gerald *

R. Hinzman Center Director; Randy *

Cole, Probation Officer; Robert *

Anderson, Probation Officer; Dave *

Pate, Correctional Staff Member; *

Patricia Cargin, Senior United States *

Probation Officer; Leah R. Noel, *

Director of Beje Clark Residential *

Center; Barbara Brandt, Correctional *

Counselor; Michael Carr, Linn County *

Jail Administrator; Brian Gardner, *

Captain, Linn County Sheriff’s *

Department; United States of America, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Appellate Case: 04-2243 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2005 Entry ID: 1888171 
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

-2-

Submitted: April 1, 2005

Filed: April 7, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Charles Arnold Trobaugh appeals the district court’s1

 Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his civil rights action. In his May 2003

complaint, consisting of 44 pages and supplemented by over 150 pages of exhibits,

Trobaugh brought numerous claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Federal Tort

Claims Act (FTCA); and state law. Named as defendants were the United States,

three federal employees, a large group of state defendants, and three employees of the

Linn County Jail. 

We agree with the district court that Trobaugh’s numerous claims against the

federal defendants were not administratively exhausted, and that administrative

remedies were available to him. Thus, the district court was required to dismiss the

Bivens claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 532

(2002) (Bivens action involving prison conditions may not be brought before

exhausting available administrative remedies); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 626-

28 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review; dismissal required where inmate has not

administratively exhausted § 1983 claims before filing lawsuit). And once the district

court determined the Bivens claims were unexhausted, the court was required to

dismiss the section 1983 claims as well. See Kozohorsky v. Harmon, 332 F.3d 1141,

1143 (8th Cir. 2003) (when multiple prison-conditions claims have been joined,

Appellate Case: 04-2243 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2005 Entry ID: 1888171 
-3-

available administrative remedies must be exhausted as to all claims). We revise the

dismissal of these claims, however, to be without prejudice. See Jones v. Norris, 310

F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). 

We also conclude that the FTCA claims were properly dismissed. See Raz v.

United States, 343 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Trobaugh either failed to administratively exhaust, see 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (requiring

disposition by federal agency as prerequisite to FTCA action); or he failed to state

viable claims under the FTCA, see Washington v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 183

F.3d 868, 873 (8th Cir. 1999). 

Because the dismissal of Trobaugh’s federal claims was proper, we find no

abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over the state claims. See Regions Bank v. J.R. Oil Co., 387 F.3d 721,

732 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). However, we also modify the dismissal of

these claims to be without prejudice. See Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333,

334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 968 (1996). 

We observe that, should Trobaugh choose to file another complaint once his

administrative remedies have been exhausted, such a complaint must comply with the

federal pleading requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a),(e) (requiring short and plain

statement showing pleader is entitled to relief; and that each averment in pleading be

simple, concise, and direct); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro

se litigants are not excused from complying with procedural law). 

Accordingly, we affirm, but we revise the dismissal of the Bivens and section

1983 claims, as well as the state-law claims, to be without prejudice. We also deny

Trobaugh’s pending motions. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2243 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2005 Entry ID: 1888171