2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-29-2010

Kevin Young v. Wendy Demehick

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2976

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Kevin Young v. Wendy Demehick" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1975.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1975
HLD-060 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2976

___________

KEVIN YOUNG,

Appellant

vs.

WENDY DEMEHICK, MEEF; JUDGE C. PIERCE, MEEF; JEFFREY R. DELP,

MEEF; DONALD J. GRACIA, MEEF; WILLIAM J. CIATIANIA, MEEF; NIKKI

HOLLER, MEEF; LINDIA GREGORY MIASCARO, INC.; CPL MOYER, MEEF; LT.

BIATES, MEEF; C/O HIPPLE, MEEF; C/O STEWART, MEEF; MR. ROTHMAN,

MEEF; MR. ALLENSON, MEEF; C/O STEWART, MEEF, MR. ROTHMAN, MEEF;

MR. ALLENSON, MEEF; C/O FRAN, MEEF, CIATAINIA, Warden, C/O GRAY BILL,

MEEF; MR. BUCCI, MEEF; C/O DAVIS, MEEF; MAJOR MARTIN, MEEF;

GOVERNOR OF STATE; MONTGOMERY CO.; EGLEVILLE BUREAU; J.A. FREY,

MEEF; J.M. ALGARIN, MEEF; R. CIARRILLO, MEEF; C/O PENTAGRASS, MEEF

Witness; D.J. MOLYNEAUR, MEEF Warden; SGT. GRIFFIN, MEEF; MAJOR

OHINEGER, MEEF; MAJOR MARTIN, MEEF; J P MASEAROS, INC. TRASH

COMPANY; MR. TIM O’CONNOR, for Masciaro, Inc.; PAT MASCARO COMPANY,

INC.; MRS. ANN, for Mascaro, Inc.; MRS. PATTY, for Mascaro, Inc.; CHARLIE

SHECK, for Mascaro, Inc.; DR. DHERAJ TARANATH, for Medical Center; C/O

BANKS, MEEF Witness; C/O DIAZ, MEEF Witness; BURGER KING, Mrs. Eddie

(Also) Mr. Noal (Also) Mrs. Torrie Williams; RYAN INCH, Mascaro, Inc.; SHIRLEY

BAYLE, MEEF; EILLEN STEILMAN, MEEF; MRS. AUGUSTINE, MEEF (Witness

Only); MRS KEELY, MEEF (Witness Only); MR. GIBBLE, MEEF; GALIARDO,

Witness Only - Meef; NANCY T. MCFARLAND, MEEF

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(E.D. Pa. Civil No. 08-cv-04648)

District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to Jurisdictional Defect and Possible Dismissal
2

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

December 30, 2009

Before: Chief Judge SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: January 29, 2010) 

____________

OPINION

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Young, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an

order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

dismissing his complaint. We will affirm.

Young filed a civil rights action in District Court against fifty defendants. 

The District Court dismissed Young’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),

explaining that the complaint was rambling and unclear and deprived the defendants of

sufficient notice to respond to his claims. The District Court afforded Young 30 days to

file an amended complaint, stating that he must set forth the specific events or conditions

which violated his constitutional rights, the name and place of employment of each

person who violated his constitutional rights, the dates on which his constitutional rights

were violated, the harm he suffered, if any, from each violation, and the specific relief

sought. 
 This appeal raises a question of appellate jurisdiction because the District Court’s 1

order was arguably not final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Young, however, elected

to stand on his complaint by filing a notice of appeal in lieu of an amended complaint. 

The time for filing an amended complaint has now passed and we thus have jurisdiction

to consider Young’s appeal pursuant to § 1291. Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d

848, 851 n.5 (3d Cir. 1992). 

3

Young requested additional time to comply with the District Court’s order,

and, on May 27, 2009, the District Court granted Young an additional days 30 to file an

amended complaint. 

Before the District Court entered its order, Young had filed a voluminous

number of documents, which he appears to have intended to serve as his amended

complaint or as exhibits to an amended complaint. In a memorandum dated June 24,

2009, the District Court noted that Young had submitted over 1,100 pages of material to

the Court, which did not comply with the requirements for an amended complaint or with

the District Court’s previous order. The District Court set forth the pleading requirements

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and informed Young that he should re-submit any

documents he had sent to the court if he wished to incorporate them in his amended

complaint. The District Court gave Young an additional 30 days to file an amended

complaint, noting that the failure to do so might result in the dismissal of his case with

prejudice. This appeal followed.1

We agree with the District Court that Young’s complaint fails to satisfy the

pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). Young’s complaint advances claims of retaliation
 In his response to this Court’s notice of possible summary action, Young states that 2

he was transferred from Montgomery County Prison to work release, that he was stuck

with a dirty needle while at work at a landfill, and that he contracted hepatitis. Young

also complains about the conditions of his confinement at Montgomery County Prison,

which he asserts included beatings by prison staff, a cell without running water, and

deprivation of medical treatment and access to the law library. Because his complaint

was dismissed without prejudice, Young may include these factual allegations in a new

complaint if he decides to pursue his claims.

4

and denial of access to the courts against a number of defendants without alleging any

supporting facts. He also asserts that other defendants are responsible for giving him an

infection, that others provided unsafe work conditions, and that others took money from

his prison account. Young has not provided the defendants with fair notice of his claims

and/or the grounds upon which they rest. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007). The District Court did not err in requiring Young to file an amended

complaint in order to pursue his claims. In addition, the District Court correctly stated

that Young’s submission of a multitude of documents in support of his complaint did not

comply with its order to file an amended complaint.2

Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily

affirm the District Court’s order.

_________________________