Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01821/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth E. Batchelder
Appellant
DHS
Appellee
DOJ
Appellee
EEOC
Appellee
FCI
Appellee
INS
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1821

___________

Kenneth E. Batchelder, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

INS; DHS; FCI; DOJ; EEOC, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 1, 2006

Filed: May 11, 2006 

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Batchelder appeals following the district court’s dismissal with

prejudice of his suit alleging employment discrimination under Title VII and the

Rehabilitation Act. We disagree with the court’s sua sponte dismissal of the

complaint for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, because Batchelder was not

provided notice prior to dismissal that he had to provide evidence of exhaustion. See

Ballard v. Rubin, 284 F.3d 957, 964 n.6 (8th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion under

Rehabilitation Act is not jurisdictional prerequisite, but is requirement subject to

waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling); Shempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 151 F.3d

793, 797 (8th Cir. 1998) (same for Title VII), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1139 (1999). We

also need not determine whether the court’s alternate ground for dismissal--defects in

Appellate Case: 05-1821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043612
-2-

service of process--are excused by the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (officers

of court “shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties” in cases where

plaintiffs are proceeding IFP), because Batchelder’s largely unintelligible and

incomprehensible allegations fail to provide fair notice of his claims and the grounds

upon which they rest. See Jones v. United States, 255 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir. 2001)

(appeals court may affirm district court on any basis supported by record); cf.

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514-15 (2002) (to state claim under Title

VII, plaintiff must provide fair notice of claim and grounds upon which it rests);

Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (pro se complaint must contain

specific facts supporting its conclusions).

Accordingly, we affirm. We modify the dismissal, however, to be without

prejudice so Batchelder is not precluded from refiling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appeals

court may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside, or reverse any judgment or order of court

lawfully brought before it for review). We also deny Batchelder’s motion for costs

on appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043612