2015 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-18-2015 

# H e nr y W a shin g t on v . W a r de n Gr ee ne S C I

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015

Thi s J une i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2015 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" H e nr y W ashin g t on v

. W a r de n Gr e e ne S C I " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 631. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015/631BLD

- 234 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 14

- 1 8 80

_____________ HENRY UNSELD WASHINGTON , Appellant
v. WARDEN SCI

- GREENE; BYUNGHAK JIN Doctor, SCI

- Gree ne; PRISON HEALTH SE RVICES, INC., (“PHS” ) PA. Doc. Health Care Providers; SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DOC Commissioner; LORI WHITE, Deputy Commissioner; JEFFREY MARTIN, Deputy Warden SCI

- Greene; MARK CAPPOZZA, Deputy Warden SCI

- Green e; DANNY DAVIS, Warden Assistant, SCI

- Greene; TRACY SHAWLEY, Warden ’ s Assistant, SCI

Greene; DIANE THOMAS, Administrative 2, SCI

- Greene; LORINDA WINGFIELD, also known as Lorinda Winfield; W. LEGGETT; P. WALKER, RHU Commander, SCI

Greene; C.A. HAYWOOD, Capt ain of Security, SCI

- Greene; ARMSTRONG, Lieutenant of Security, SCI

- Greene; V. SANTOYO, Lieutenant of Security, SCI

- Greene; D. A. KNISELY; A. MORRIS, Lieutenant of Security, SCI

- Greene; S. P. DURCO, Lieutenant of Security, SCI

- Greene; GREGO; J. M. SMITH, S ergeant, SCI

- Greene; DORSEY, Sergeant, SCI

- Greene; S. GERVIN; STEWART, Sergeant, SCI

- Greene; R. L.

RENNER, Sergeant, SCI

- Greene; FARRIER, Sergeant, SCI

- Greene; BOWLEN, Corrections Officers, SCI

- Greene; MS. R. HAYES, Corrections Officer, SCI

Greene; RUSH, C orrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; J.C. MARDERNESS, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; MAYER, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; MCDOWSVILLE, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; SHAFFER, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; STEPHENS, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; MS. T. M. LORA, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; S. W. NEWCOMER, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; J. ARDABELL, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; STUMP, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; NELSON, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; T. S. OSWALD, Corrections Officer, SCI

Greene; T. A. CONKLIN, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; K.E. VOUGHT, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; T. R. GRUMP, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; KULK, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; JONES, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; J. D. SUHAN, Correction s Officer, SCI

- Greene; E.M. BOGDEN, Corrections Officer, SCI

Greene; S. A. ARDABELL, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; MICHELE2

ANTANOVICH, Nurse Practitioner, SCI

- Greene; MICHELE L. HOWARD

- DIGGS, PAC; IRMA VIHLIDAL, Health Care Administrator, SCI

- Greene; NE DRA GREGO, Nurses Supervisor, SCI

- Greene; JOHNNY MCANANY, Nurses Supervisor, SCI

- Greene; R. DIETZ, Psychiatric Coordinator, SCI

- Greene; ASSAD KAHN, Psychiatrist, SCI

Greene; D. SWARTZ, Counselor, SCI

- Greene; D. GEEHRING, Mail Inspector Supervisor, SCI

- Gree ne; HENDRICKS, Property Officer, SCI

- Greene; J. SMITH, Corrections Officer, SCI

- Greene; WILLIAM JOSIAH TRBOVICH; MS
. DONALDSON

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvani a (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 1 1

- cv - 0 1 046 ) District Judge: Hono rable Terrence F. McVerry

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10 .6 June 11, 2015 Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : June 18, 2015 )

___________ OPINION *

___________ PER CURIAM Appellant, Henry Washington , appeals the District Court’ s order dismissing his pro se amended c omplaint. Upon considerati on of the record, we conclude that the District Court properly determined that Washington ’s amended c omplaint was subject to summary dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
. B ecause the appeal presents no substa ntial question , we will affirm the judgment of the District Court
.

* This disposition is no t an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.3

In August 201 1 , Washington filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United Stat es District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania , together with a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis . The complaint was forty

- one pages in length (hand written and single

- spaced) and named fifty

- nine def endants , most of whom are current or former employees and medical providers at the State Cor rectional Institution at Greene in Pennsylvania
. Washington alleged v iolations of his rights under the Firs t, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as violation s of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 , and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc

- 1(a)
. Washington was granted in forma pauperis status, and the Magistrate Judge (“MJ”) to whom the complaint was referred instructed hi m of the need to file an amended complaint wherein he “name[d] every defendant and clea rly state[d] any and all claims against each defendant.” See MJ’s O rder entered Sept. 13, 20 11 at 2
. W e need not go into the detail s of all that ensued during the following two and a half

- year period as th e District Court has painstakingly summarized the proceedings and filings that comprise the forty

- seven pages of docket entries that resulted from Washington’s numerous and voluminous filings. See D . Ct. Mem. Order entered Mar. 4, 2014. Suffice it to say that , contrary to the court’s instructions, Wash ington ultimately filed a 174

- page amended complaint on August 23, 2013 , that was anything but clear and concise
. Defendants filed motions seeking to have Washington’s amended complaint dismissed for, inter alia , his failure to comply with the Federal Rul es of Civil Procedure.4

On March 4 , 201 4 , the District Court entered a n order granting defendants’ motions to the extent they sought such a dismissal under the Federal Rules
. The District Court found that the amended complaint “defies the basic pleadin g
e lements of the Federal Rules
. ” S ee i d. at 10. In particular, the District Court noted that Washington’s amended complaint “does not re motely comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 , ” but instead “contain[s] hundreds of factual averments written in minutely small, and mostly illegible, handwriting” and “is best described as a ‘kitchen

- sink’ or

‘ shotgun’ complaint , where a plaintiff brings every conceivable claim against every conceivable defendant.” Id
. Insofar as it was apparent from the numerous pleadings submitted that Washington was unable or unwilling to file a conforming complaint, the District Court dismissed the action without further leave to amend. This timely appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291
. W hile w e exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint , s ee Tourscher v. McCullough , 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) , we review the D istrict C ourt’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 for an abuse of discretion. See In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig. , 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996)
. We find no such abuse here. Upon review of the record, and holding Washington ’s amended complaint to less stringent standards in light of his pro se status as did the District Court , see Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) , we agree with the District Court that the complaint failed to comply with Rule 8
. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a pleading to contain “ a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court ’ s jurisdiction” and “a5

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2)
. Each averment must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at 8(d)(1). “T aken together, ” Rules 8(a) and 8(d)(1) “ underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules .” In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig. , 90 F.3d at 702 ( citation omitted)
. Washington ’s amended complaint was anything but “simple, concise , and direct.” The amended complain t consists of approximately 174 pages of allegations, presented mostly in single

- p aragraph style, often with paragraph s spanning more than one page . A s the District Court noted, much of the document appears in handwriting that is , at times, nearly unreada ble. The amended complaint lacks “a short and plain statement ” of the court’s jurisdictional grounds and of the claim s showing entitlement to relief, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) , and the allegations are not “simple, concise , and direct. ” S ee Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1)
. It is so excessively voluminous and unfocused as to be unintelligible, and defies any attempt to meaningfully answer or plead to it. Rather than attempt to concisely clarify and simpl ify his allegations, Washington himself notes that he instead resorted to “using two lines in each space ” whe n redrafting his amended complaint. See Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Review (entry # 213) at 1. However, c ramming tw ice the amount of handwritten information into the same physical space did nothing to move Was hington’s filing closer to being one that complied with the dictates of Rule 8
. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court committ ed no error in granting defendants’ motions and dismissing Washington’s amended complaint without further6

leave to amen d
. 1 See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002)
. Because this appeal present s no substantial question , we will affirm the District Court ’ s order of dismissal
. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

1 In light of this conclusion, we need not consider the propriety of the District Court’s conclusion that Washington’s amended complaint runs afoul of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 as well.