Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06013/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06013-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Midwest City Police Department
Appellee
John Q. Shangreaux
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FI LED 

United Stares Court of Appeals 

Tench Circuit 

JUN 1 ~· 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk JOHN Q. SHANGREAUX, also 

known as Charles Norman, 

also known as Robert H. 

Ketchum, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-6013 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. ) 

) 

MIDWEST CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1665-W) 

(W. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

On October 12, 1990, the plaintiff, John Q. Shangreaux, 

appearing prose, filed an action against the defendant, Midwest 

City Police Department, alleging that the defendant deprived him 

of various constitutional rights during the course of his arrest. 

On December 18, 1990, the district court dismissed Shangreaux's 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 91-6013 Document: 010110119397 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 1 
complaint on the grounds that the Midwest City Police Department 

was not a suable entity. Dist. Ct. Order at 2. The district 

court did, however, give Shangreaux ten days to amend his 

complaint and to name the individual police officers involved in 

the alleged offense. Id. at 1 n.1. Eight days later, Shangreaux 

filed an amended complaint naming three John Doe police officers, 

"DOES ONE, TWO, AND THREE, DEFENDANTS." Amended Complaint, R. 

Doc. 12. The docketing clerk, unaware that the district court had 

given Shangreaux ten days to amend his complaint, rejected it on 

the ground that his complaint had already been dismissed. Id. 

Shangreaux raises two claims on appeal: (1) that the 

district court improperly denied him the right to amend his 

complaint in accordance with its December 18, 1990 order; and (2) 

that the Midwest City Police Department was properly named as a 

defendant. We agree with Shangreaux's first claim but reject his 

second. 

Shangreaux complied with the court's ten day condition it 

imposed on his right to amend his complaint. Therefore, the 

district court is instructed to accept his amended complaint, 

which was properly tendered within the ten day time period. 

Although Shangreaux's amended complaint does not give the actual 

names of the police officers involved, the "Doe" references are 

sufficient. He describes the defendants as the officers that 

arrested him, and that description is sufficient by date and 

incident to enable the court to order the city, which has appeared 

in this case, to identify the officers by name. See Scheetz v. 

Morning Call, 130 F.R.D. 34, 36-37 (E.D. Penn. 1990). See also 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6013 Document: 010110119397 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 2 
... 

Keno v. Doe, 74 F.R.D. 587, 588 n.2 (D.N.J. 1977), aff'd, 578 F.2d 

1374 (3d Cir. 1978) (where the names of the defendants are 

unknown, "the complaint should state that the name is fictitious 

and provide an adequate description of some kind which is 

sufficient to identify the person involved so that process can be 

served."). Cf. Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 

403 U.S. 388, 390 n.2 (1971) ("The agents were not named in 

petitioner's complaint, and the District Court ordered that the 

complaint be served upon "those federal agents who it is indicated 

by the records of the United States Attorney participated in the 

November 25, 1965, arrest of the [petitioner]." ... Five agents 

were ultimately served." (brackets in the original, citation 

omitted)). But see Breslin v. City and County of Philadelphia, 92 

F.R.D. 764, 765 (E.D. Penn. 1981) (dismissing a suit against three 

unnamed police officers citing to pre-Bivens cases holding that 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for fictitious 

names). Once the identities of the officers are known, the 

district court may instruct a United States Marshal to serve the 

officers with process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2)(B)(i). 

Shangreaux's second claim is without merit. The police 

department of Midwest City is not a suable entity. See Martinez 

v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444 (10th Cir. 1985), modified in part on 

rehearing, 778 F.2d 553 (10th Cir. 1985). Of course, to remedy 

this defect, Shangreaux needs only to amend his complaint to name 

Midwest City as a defendant. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6013 Document: 010110119397 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 3 
Therefore, this case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent 

with this order. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-6013 Document: 010110119397 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 4