Torain v. Morrissey , 559 F. App'x 778 ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 23, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
MUSTAPHA D.R. TORAIN, #464762,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 13-1502
(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-02420-LTB)
MITCHELL R. MORRISSEY, Reg. No. (D. Colo.)
13784; TIM GOSS, #05118; SASSETTI,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Mustapha Torain filed this complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while in jail
awaiting trial on state drug charges. Although his complaint was unclear, he appeared to
mainly challenge the validity of his arrest and of the criminal charges pending against
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
him. The magistrate judge concluded the complaint was deficient under Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the specific claims he asserted were confusing
and difficult to understand. The magistrate judge accordingly instructed Plaintiff to file
an amended complaint clearly identifying the specific claims he was asserting, the
specific facts that supported each asserted claim, the Defendants against whom he was
asserting each claim, and what each Defendant did to allegedly violate his rights. See
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). The
magistrate judge also noted that federal courts may not intervene in ongoing state court
proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. See Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885,
889 (10th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff responded to the magistrate judge’s order by filing two new pleadings and
two other documents that contained varying, and still unclear, iterations of his claims.
The district court reviewed all of the submitted pleadings and other documents and
concluded that Plaintiff had still failed to provide a short and plain statement of the claims
he was asserting. The district court accordingly dismissed the action without prejudice
for failure to file an amended pleading that complied with Rule 8.
After thoroughly reviewing Plaintiff’s brief and the record on appeal, we see no
error in the district court’s dismissal of the action for failure to comply with Rule 8. We
also note that, to the extent Plaintiff’s complaint sought to raise a claim of malicious
prosecution or other claim challenging the validity of the pending state court charges
against him, such claims would be premature under the rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512
-2-
U.S. 477 (1994). See Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep’t, 195 F.3d 553, 557 (10th
Cir. 1999).
For substantially the same reasons given by the magistrate judge and district court,
we AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing this action without prejudice. We
GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and remind him of his
obligation to continue making partial payments until the entire filing fee has been paid in
full.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-