Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07086/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Park Anderson
Appellee
Bobby Battle
Appellee
Simon Toppah
Appellant
United States of America
Intervenor

Document Text:

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L Jl.~ V 

United States Court of Appeah FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

BOBBY BATTLE, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

v. 

PARK ANDERSON, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

SIMON TOPPAH, 

Applicant-in-InterventionAppellant. 

BOBBY BATTLE, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

v . 

PARK ANDERSON, and his successor, 

et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

JEAN L'AQUARIUS, 

Applicant-in-InterventionAppellant. 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

MAY 1 t 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-7086 

(D.C. No. 72-95) 

(E.D. Okla.} 

No. 92-7101 

(D.C. No. 72-95) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Appellate Case: 92-7086 Document: 010110114159 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 1 
Before 

District 

MOORE and 

Judge. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and VAN BEBBER,** 

**Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

Applicants-in-intervention, Simon Toppah and Jean L'Aquarius, 

appeal from the district court's orders denying their applications 

to intervene in the Battle v. Anderson class action. 1 See Battle 

v. Anderson, 376 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Okla. 1974). Upon review, we 

affirm as to Toppah and reverse and remand as to L'Aquarius. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

1 The district court's denial of an application to intervene is 

a collateral order which is immediately appealable. See Arney v. 

Finney, 967 F.2d 418, 421 (10th Cir. 1992). 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-7086 Document: 010110114159 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 2 
• 

No. 92-7086 

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as 

untimely. On April 23, 1992, the district court denied Toppah's 

application to intervene. On May 5, 1992, Toppah served a motion 

'd 2 to reconsi er. This motion was served within ten days of the 

entry of the district court's order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (when 

period of time to perform a p r escribed act is less than eleven 

days, intermediate weekends and holidays shall be excluded in 

computation); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) (when party must perform act 

within prescribed period and notice is served upon party by mail, 

three days shall be added to prescribed period), and tolled the 

time for taking an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (4); see also 

Skagerberg v. Oklahoma, 797 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1986). 

The district court denied Toppah's motion for reconsideration 

on May 18, 1992. Toppah filed his notice of appeal May 29, 1992. 

Therefore, the notice of appeal was timely and we have 

jurisdiction to address the merits of this appeal. 

Permissive intervention is a matter within the district 

court's discretion and we review its order on that issue only for 

abuse of that discretion. United Nuclear Co:r:p. v. Cranford Ins. 

Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990 ), cert. denied, 111 

S. Ct. 799 (1991). Toppah has failed to show us that the district 

court abused its discretion in denying his motion to intervene. 

2 Although the motion was filed May 15, 1992, the date on the 

certificate of servic e i s May 5, 1992. We deem the date on the 

certificate of service to be t h date of service absent evidence 

to the contrary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 (time computed from date 

of service of motion); Chesson v. Jaguez, 986 F.2d 363, 365 (10th 

Cir. 1993) . No such evidence is present here. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-7086 Document: 010110114159 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 3 
L'Aquarius 

jury trial on 

sought 

the issue 

No. 92-7101 

to intervene in Battle in order to have a 

of damages. He alleged defendants' 

violations of his First Amendment rights have continued unabated. 

In 1972, L'Aquarius filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. In addition to alleging claims for habeas relief, 

L'Aquarius alleged prison officials had violated his First 

Amendment right to freedom of religion by not allowing him to have 

long hair and a beard, not providing him a diet compatible with 

his beliefs, and not allowing him to worship with fellow 

believers. He also alleged he was unconstitutionally subjected to 

the use of mace and tear gas, was not given adequate medical 

attention, and was forced to work without compensation. 

The court did not consolidate this action with Battle, which 

was commenced at the same time. Instead, the court, finding that 

L'Aquarius' constitutional rights had been violated, incorporated 

the Battle decree by reference, and held the remedies ordered in 

Battle would afford L'Aquarius the necessary relief. 

In this latest pleading, L'Aquarius seeks money damages 

because he has not obtained relief as ordered in his original 

action. The district court dismissed the pleading holding that 

L'Aquarius had raised non-Battle issues and, therefore, had to 

proceed in a separate action. 

An individual inmate may 

injunctive and equitable relief 

not fi~e a separate action "for 

from alleged unconstitutional 

prison conditions ... where there is an existing class action . " 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-7086 Document: 010110114159 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 4 
.. McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1991). However, 

class members may bring individual suits when they seek equitable 

relief for claims not being litigated within the class action or 

when they seek money damages. Id. at 1166 n.4. 

Because L'Aquarius is requesting money damages, we agree he 

must proceed in a separate action. However, L'Aquarius is 

proceeding pro se and, therefore, his pleadings should be 

liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972). So construed, L'Aquarius' "motion" is sufficient to be 

denominated a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. S(f) (pleadings shall 

be construed to do substantial justice). L'Aquarius has complied 

sufficiently with Rule S(a). The court's jurisdiction is clear, 

he stated his claims, and demanded judgment in terms of money 

damages. We, therefore, reverse the district court's order and 

remand this action with directions to file this pleading as a 

complaint in a separately numbered action. The district court 

should then proceed with this action in accordance with law. 

We note that L'Aquarius identified the defendants only in the 

body of his pleading. The court may wish to consider allowing 

L'Aquarius to 

the caption. 

amend his complaint to also name each defendant in 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. lO(a) (caption shall include 

names of all parties); cf. Barsten v. Department of Interior, 896 

F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1990) (proper defendant is named if 

allegations in body of complaint make it clear the party is 

intended as defendant); 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1321 (1990) (defective caption is 

merely formal error and should never be viewed as fatal defect). 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-7086 Document: 010110114159 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 5 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma in No. 92-7086 is AFFIRMED. The 

judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Oklahoma in No. 92-7101 is REVERSED, and the case is 

REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this order and 

judgment. 

t 

Entered for the Court 

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-7086 Document: 010110114159 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 6