Opinion ID: 168589
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Identification of Proper Defendants

Text: 3 Before reviewing the merits of the district court's dismissal, we first must resolve who the proper defendants are in this action. In the captions of his complaint and his amended complaint, Mr. Trackwell named only the United States Government as a defendant. As the district court noted, however, he actually seeks relief against the Clerk of the Supreme Court . . . and [the] Court itself. R. Doc. 23 at 6 n. 2. This was a proper reading of Mr. Trackwell's pleadings. The general rule is that in the caption of the complaint, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties. Fed. R.Civ.P. 10(a). But in a pro se case when the plaintiff names the wrong defendant in the caption or when the identity of the defendants is unclear from the caption, courts may look to the body of the complaint to determine who the intended and proper defendants are. See Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1215-16 (10th Cir. 2006); Rice v. Hamilton Air Force Base Commissary, 720 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 It is clear from the body of Mr. Trackwell's pleadings that he seeks relief from the Supreme Court and its Clerk. This does not, however, end the inquiry as to the Clerk, for we must further consider whether the claim is against the Clerk in his individual or his official capacity. When, as here, the complaint fails to specify the capacity in which the government official is sued, we look to the substance of the pleadings and the course of the proceedings in order to determine whether the suit is for individual or official liability. Pride v. Does, 997 F.2d 712, 715 (10th Cir.1993). Mr. Trackwell has not sought damages. And his request that the Clerk transmit his application to Justice Breyer is an act that the Clerk can perform only in his official capacity. Accordingly, we construe Mr. Trackwell's claim against the Clerk as an official-capacity claim. See Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225, 1234 (10th Cir. 2005) (mandamus remedy is applied to require a public official to perform a duty imposed upon him in his official capacity).