FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 20, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 16 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 9- cv -8 09 02 -WPD THOMAS E. HEL T, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SAND & SEA VILLAGE TRAILER PARK, et a l., Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 20 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, HU LL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Tho m as E. Helt app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s s uasp on te di sm is sa l o f hi s p ro se

42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c om

pl ai ntwit ho utpre

jud ic e fo r fai lu re t o c om

pl y wit h t he co urt’s o rd ers . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . Helt , a Flo rid a st at e p ris on er, p le d g ui lt y in20 08 to m an sl au gh te r in co nn ect io n wi th th e d eat h o f hi s g irl fri en d, Li saRo se nf arb . Helt , pro ceed in g i n fo rm a p aupe ris an d p ro se, fi le d thi s § 19 83 act io n a ga in stva rio us en ti ti es in vo lv edinth e in ve st ig at io n o f Ro se nf arb ’s dea th an d Hel t’s s ub se qu en t cr im in al pr os ecu ti on . The § 19 83 co m pl ai ntall eg es vi ol at io ns of He lt ’s Firs t, Fo urth , Fift h, Si xt h, Ei gh th , Tent h andFo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts ari si ng ou t o f th e cri m in al in ve st ig at io n a ndpro se cu ti on an d a ls o t he m ed ic al tre at m en t Hel t re cei ve d wh il e de ta in edat t he Pal m

Beac h C ou nt y

Jai l dur in g t he tri al . The di stric t co urt d is m is se d the co m pl ai ntwit ho utpre

jud ic e b ecau se Helt rep eat ed ly fail edto co m

pl y wit h t he co urt’s o rd ers to am en d t he co m pl ai ntto co m pl y wit h t he pl ead in g re qu ire m en ts of F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 8 (a) an d 1 0( b) . Und er the Pri so n Li ti ga ti on Refo rm Act, a co urt m

us t d is m is s a p ris on er’s ci vi l ri gh ts co m

pl ai ntif i t “ fai ls to st at e a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f m ay

be gr an te d.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A; id . § 1 91 5( e)(2 ). To p ro pe rly sta te a cl ai m , a pl ai nt iff m us t fi le a co m

pl ai ntco nt ai ni ng a “ sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e cl ai m

2sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 8(a )(2 ). In a dd it io n,

Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 0( b) requi res a pl ai nt iff to st at e cl ai m s “ in nu m be redpa rag rap hs , each li m it edas f ar as pra ct ic ab le to a si ng le setof ci rcu m st an ces ” an d, wh enitwil l p ro m ot e cl ari ty, requi res th e p la in ti ff t o l im it each cla im

to “ a se parat e tr an sa ct io n o r oc cu rren ce.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 10 (b ). A di st ric t co urt h as th e au th or it y to di sm is s a c om

pl ai ntforfai lu re t o co m pl y wit h aco urt o rd er o r th e fed eral rul es . See Fed . R. Civ . P. 41 (b ); B et ty K Age nc ie s, Lt d. v . M/V M on ad a, 43 2 F .3d13 33 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (rec og ni zi ng th ata di st ric t co urt m ay actun de r ei th er Ru le 41 (b ) orun de r it s in he ren t au th or it y

to en fo rce i ts own ord ers ). W e rev ie w su cha di sm is sa l fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Be tt y K Agen ci es , Ltd ., 43 2 F .3dat 1 33 7; see als o Gra tt on v. GreatAm . Comm c’ns , 17 8 F .3d13 73 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Dis m is sa l “ up on di sr eg ardof a n o rd er, es pe ci al ly whe re the li ti ga ntha s b een for ewarn ed , gen eral ly is no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Mo on v. News om e, 86 3 F .2d83 5, 8 37 (11 thCir . 19 89 ). InHelt ’s cas e, we fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Whil e co nduc ti ng a pr el im in ary sc reen in g p ur su an t t o § 19 15 A, a m ag is tra te jud ge de te rm in edth at Helt ’s ori gi na l p ro se c om pl ai nt , whi ch co ns is te d o f ov er o ne hu nd redpa ge s, m an y of th em ha nd writ te n, was “ in su ffi ci en t t o p ro ceedbe cau se itis im po ss ib le to 3di sc ern whatco ns ti tu ti on al cla im s ar e rai se d a ga in steach de fen da ntno [r] what

rel ie f th e p la in ti ff s eek s.” Th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s ord er d ire ct edHeltto am en d h is co m pl ai ntto setforth “ a sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f hi s cl ai m s, d es cri bi ng th e na tu re o f an y

in juri es an d h ow ea ch in di vi du al de fen da ntvi ol at edhi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Th e o rd er g av e Hel t’s ex pl ic itin st ru ct io ns to , am on g o th er th in gs , us e se pa rat e p arag rap hs foreach de fen dant“ ex pl ai ni ng whatth atde fen da nt di d a ndth e supp orti ng fact s t o s ho w why th atpe rs on is be in g s ue d.” The o rd er al so warn edHeltth atth e fai lu re t o fi le a co m pl ia ntam en de d c om

pl ai ntm ig ht res ul t i n t he di sm is sa l o f hi s ca se wit ho utpre jud ic e. Inres po ns e, Heltfil edan18 -p ag e p le ad in g, wh ic h, wh il e m or e co nc is e, was di sjo in te d, d iff

ic ul t t o d eci ph er an d d idno t ex pl ai n i n s ep arat e p arag rap hs pr eci se ly wha t ea ch na m edde fen da ntdi d t o v io la te Helt ’s rig ht s. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge de te rm in edHelt ’s am en de d c om pl ai ntwas i ns uf

fic ie nt . The m ag is tra te jud ge ’s sec on d o rd er re it erat edth e in st ru ct io ns Heltne ed edto fol lo w to cu re the co m pl ai nt ’s def

ic ie nc ie s an d a ga in warn edHeltth ata fai lu re t o d o s o m ig htres ul t in th e d is m is sa l o f hi s ca se . Heltfil eda th irdpl ead in g, en ti tl ed“ Mo ti on forOrde r to Sh ow Caus e to 22 54 to Am en de d C om

pl ai nt ” whi ch ha d o ve r on e h un dr edpa ge s o f at ta ch m en ts . Thi s p le ad in g re st at edth e al le ga ti on s i n Hel t’s o rig in al an d fi rs t am en de d 4co m

pl ai nt s an d a dd edass ert io ns , in te r al ia , (1) th atHeltha d c om pl ie d wi th Ru le s of Civ il Pro cedur e, (2 ) th athi s amend edco m pl ai ntco nt ai ne d ash ort an d p la in st at em en t o f hi s cl ai m s an d (3 ) th athe ha d d es cri be d wi thas m uc h p reci si on as po ss ib le whattra ns pi redan d t he act io ns each de fen da ntto ok . The m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda Rep ort an d R eco m m en da ti on(“ R&R ”) fin di ng th atHelt ’s com

pl ai ntwas s ti ll in su ffi ci en t t o p ro ceedbe cau se itwas im po ss ib le to di sc ern whatco ns ti tu ti on al cla im s wer e rai se d a ga in steach de fen da ntan d wh atrel ie f Hel t s ou gh t. The m ag is tra te jud ge no te d tha t Hel t h ad be enpe rm it te d t o a m en d h is co m pl ai ntto cu re the de fic ie nc ie s i n h is pl ead in g, an d he ha d fi le d apl ead in g wh ic h was “ al m os t i nd eci ph erab le .” Alt ho ug h Hel t was pe rm it te d asec on d a tt em ptat a m en di ng hi s co m

pl ai nt , th e m ag is tra te jud ge st il l co ul d n otdi sc ern “ ei th er the cla im s o r th e d efen dant s t o b e su ed .” The R &R ackno wled ge d Hel t’s p ro se s ta tu s, b utex pl ai ne d tha t t he de fen da nt s “ m us t b e ab le to un de rs ta ndth e cl ai m

of t he pl ai nt iff

an d wh athe or s he is accu se d o f.” Ci ti ng Ru le s 8 (a) a nd10 (b ), th e R&R reco m m en de d d is m is si ng Helt ’s act io n wi th ou t pr ejud ic e fo r fai lu re t o c om pl y wit h t he co urt’s o rd ers . Ove r Hel t’s o bjec ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he R&R a nddi sm is se d Helt ’s § 1 98 3 c om

pl ai ntwit ho utpre

jud ic e. The d is tri ctco urt ag reedth atitco ul d no t “ as cert ai n wh atPla in ti ff’s co m pl ai nt s ar e, or

who he is su in g.” The d is tri ct 5co urt s ug ge st edth atto th e ex te ntHeltwas c ha ll en gi ng hi s 2 00 8 m an sl au gh te r

co nv ic ti on , hi s cl ai m s s eem edto be ba rredby H eckv. Hu m ph rey, 51 2 U.S. 4 77 , 11 4 S . Ct. 2 36 4 (1 99 4) , bu t t ha t, “ [i]n a ny even t, Pl ai nt iff ha s b eengi ve n a m

pl e op po rtu ni ti es to cure the de fect s i n t hi s co m pl ai ntan d h as be enun ab le to do so .” Heltwas a dv is edof the de fect s i n h is co m pl ai ntan d g iv entwo op po rtu ni ti es to cu re the m . Heltwas warne d t wice th athe face d d is m is sa l i f he was u nabl e to do so . Furt he rm or e, Helt ’s las t p le ad in g m ai nt ai ne d t ha t Hel t co ul d n otm ak e m or e pr eci se all eg at io ns . Bas edon ou r own rev ie w, we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t Helt ’s att em

pt s t o c ur e th e p le ad in g d efec ts were i ns uf fic ie ntto co m

pl y wit h R ul es 8( a) an d 1 0( b) an d d idno t ad vi se th e d efen da nt s o f th e p reci se cla im s ag ai ns t t he m orth e act io ns th ey

to okgi vi ng ris e to th os e cl ai m s. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt was withi n i ts di sc ret io n t o d is m is s Hel t’s ac ti onwit ho utpre jud ic e. AFFIRMED.

6