Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02534/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02534-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Greg Harmon
Appellee
Turoty Hayes
Appellee
Grady Newingham
Appellant
Kay Wade
Appellee
David Westbrook
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2534

___________

Grady Newingham, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

David Westbrook, Sgt., Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC; Turoty Hayes, * [UNPUBLISHED]

CO-I, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; *

Greg Harmon, Warden, Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC; Kay Wade, *

Corporal, Maximum Security Unit, *

ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 19, 2006 

Filed: November 1, 2006

___________

Before MAGILL, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Grady Newingham, an Arkansas prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to reinstate and amend his previously dismissed 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. He also has moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Leaving fee

collection to the district court, we grant Newingham IFP status, and we remand. 

Appellate Case: 06-2534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2006 Entry ID: 2105502
-2-

In May 2002 and September 2003, Newingham filed two section 1983 actions

that were consolidated in the district court. He claimed that various prison officials

were deliberately indifferent to his safety and had conspired to cover up an April 2001

assault on him. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). On appeal we affirmed,

stating dismissal without prejudice was merited because Newingham had not shown

exhaustion as to his claim against one defendant. See Newingham v. Westbrook, 140

Fed. Appx. 634 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2005) (unpublished per curiam). 

In April 2006, Newingham moved to reinstate and amend his dismissed civil

action to delete any unexhausted claims. The district court summarily denied the

motion. 

While the federal rules do not provide specifically for a motion to reinstate,

there is precedent in this circuit for liberally construing such a motion as initiating a

new civil action. See Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 738-39 (8th Cir. 2001) (so

construing pro se “Motion to Reinstate Cause” filed two months after dismissal of

prisoner’s § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies). We therefore

construe Newingham’s April 20, 2006, motion to reinstate as initiating a new civil

action, with the motion to be treated as the initial complaint, open to amendment, see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Newingham’s clear intent is to proceed on a section 1983 action

with only exhausted claims. If on remand defendants contend that any claim is

unexhausted, the district court should afford Newingham the opportunity to

demonstrate exhaustion and to excise any unexhausted claim. 

Accordingly, we vacate the order denying the motion to reinstate, and remand

for the district court to open a separate civil action as of April 20, 2006, treating the

served reinstatement motion as the served initial complaint in the new action.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2534 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2006 Entry ID: 2105502