Court Opinion

ID: 2964957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:26.959986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:55.679070
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1821

                                  RONALD L'HEUREUX,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                         WALTER WHITMAN, WARDEN, ACI, ET AL.,

                               Defendants, Respondents.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ronald L'Heureux on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Elisabeth  A.  Wallace,  Special Assistant  Attorney  General,  on
            ______________________
        Memorandum in  Support of  Appellees' Motion to  Dismiss Appeal  or to
        Summarily Affirm the Judgment Below, for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                   OCTOBER 9, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  Appellant  Ronald  L'Heureux  appeals  the
                 ___________

            dismissal by  the district  court of  his complaint  alleging

            violation of his civil rights and seeking to hold  defendants

            in contempt for  violation of the Morris  and DeFusco consent
                                              ______      _______

            decrees.  Having reviewed carefully the record in  this case,

            we vacate the dismissal in part and affirm it in part.

                 The  district  court  in  the  instant  case  based  its

            dismissal  on the report and recommendation of the magistrate

            judge.    That  report found  that  the  complaint should  be

            dismissed  for  three  separate  reasons.     None,  however,

            suffices to sustain dismissal of the entire complaint.

                 First,  the  magistrate  judge  found  that  L'Heureux's

            amended complaint violated a court  order to file a short and

            plain statement of his claim  as required by Fed. R. Civ.  P.

            8(a)  and that violation  of that order  supported dismissal.

            Yet,  while  L'Heureux's   complaint  is   indeed  long   (15

            handwritten  single spaced pages) and at many times rambling,

            it sufficiently fulfills the purpose  of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)

            so as  not to be  in violation  of the previous  court order.

            The purpose of Fed. R. Civ.  P. 8(a) is to give "fair  notice

            [to the defendants]  of the claim asserted."   See Simmons v.
                                                           ___ _______

            Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995).  Dismissal is usually
            _______

            "reserved  for  those  case  in  which  the  complaint is  so

            confused,  vague, or otherwise  unintelligible that  its true

            substance,  if any, is  well disguised."   See  Salahuddin v.
                                                       ___  __________

                                         -2-

            Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988).  L'Heureux's complaint
            _____

            seems to give fair  notice of at least two claims, neither of

            which  appears  frivolous on  its  face.   First,  he alleges

            various violations of the DeFusco consent decree and seeks to
                                      _______

            have defendants held  in contempt, the appropriate  means for

            seeking to  enforce compliance  with a  consent decree.   See
                                                                      ___

            Martel v. Fridovich, 14 F.3d 1, 3 n.4 (1st Cir. 1993).  Also,
            ______    _________

            he  alleges  several  instances  of  defendants'  retaliating

            against him for  the exercise of  his right of access  to the

            courts.  Therefore, dismissal of the complaint as a violation

            of the order  to comply  with Rule  8(a) was  improper.   See
                                                                      ___

            Simmons,  49  F.3d  at  88  ("Dismissal  with  prejudice  was
            _______

            inappropriate   because   the    amended   complaint   stated

            nonfrivolous  claims and  sufficed  to  give  notice  of  the

            substance,  and   many  of  the  details,   of  [defendant's]

            claims.").

                 The  magistrate judge also  recommended dismissal on the

            ground that L'Heureux  had not opposed defendants'  motion to

            dismiss.   However, the  local rule on  which the  magistrate

            judge  relied for his  recommendation allows for  granting an

            unopposed order only when to do  is "just."  For the  reasons

            elsewhere in this  opinion, we do not find  that dismissal of

            the entire complaint in this case to have been just.

                 Finally, the magistrate  judge recommended dismissal  on

            the  basis of Fed.  R. Civ. P.  12(b)(6).   In particular, he

                                         -3-

            found  that some  of  L'Heureux's  complaints repetitious  of

            claims in other suits and others too insubstantial to state a

            claim for relief.  Both grounds are sufficient for dismissing

            most claims.   In particular,  L'Heureux's retaliation  claim

            appears  duplicative  of another  case  currently pending  in

            federal  court and thus properly  subject to dismissal.  See,
                                                                     ___

            e.g., I.A. Durbin v. Jefferson National Bank,  793 F.2d 1541,
            ____  ___________    _______________________

            1551  (11th  Cir.  1986) ("it  is  well  established  that as

            between  federal district courts, the general principle is to

            avoid  duplicative  litigation")(citing   cases).    However,

            nothing in the  record indicates that the  alleged violations

            of  the consents  decree are duplicative  of claims  in other

            cases.    Moreover,  at least some  of L'Heureux's  claims of

            consent decree  violations seem  supported with  sufficiently

            specific  allegations  to  withstand   dismissal  under  Rule

            12(b)(6),  at  least  without  further   explication  by  the

            district court.  

                 We  of course  hazard no  opinion  as to  the merits  of

            L'Heureux's claims.  

                 The order of  dismissal is vacated as far  as it relates
                                            _______

            to the claims of consent decree violations.  The dismissal of

            the  other claims  is affirmed.    The case  is remanded  for
                                  ________

            further proceedings in accord with this opinion.

                                         -4-