Prisoner's Civil Rights Action Alleging False Imprisonment Reinstated
Cohen v. Longshore, ___ F.3d ___ , 2010 WL xxx (10th Cir. 2010) (CO) (No. 09-1563)
The district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s civil rights complaint for false imprisonment and denying extension of time to amend when the court failed to consider the plaintiff’s reasons for delay, which were all outside of Plaintiff’s control, including serious medical conditions. It abused its discretion in dismissing for the pro se Plaintiff’s failure to attach the exact same exhibit to each copy of the amended complaint he filed. This appeared to be a inadvertent failure and not a disregard of any district court order. Because the dismissal was with prejudice (the default position since the court did not specify), the district court failed to consider the multiple factors required before dismissal with prejudice.
Finally, the district court’s third reason for denial of amendment and dismissal–that any amendment would be futile-is reviewed de novo. It was not patently obvious that the Plaintiff would lose on his additional claims. Following the more liberal circuits’ interpretation of a series of Supreme Court decisions in a generally unsettled area of the law, the Tenth holds that a prisoner no longer in custody who cannot avail himself of habeas corpus to address issues of the unconstitutionality of his conviction, can use § 1983 to bring a civil rights action on the same claim (false imprisonment in this case). District court erred in determining that Plaintiff had no claim regarding the institution’s interference with his access to the courts in his legal filings. Plaintiff’s claim had merit that a prison mail clerk’s refusal to send out his legal mail caused his objections to the magistrate’s proposed findings on another civil matter not to be received by the court, in turn causing a waiver of those objections. Dismissal reversed.
The district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s civil rights complaint for false imprisonment and denying extension of time to amend when the court failed to consider the plaintiff’s reasons for delay, which were all outside of Plaintiff’s control, including serious medical conditions. It abused its discretion in dismissing for the pro se Plaintiff’s failure to attach the exact same exhibit to each copy of the amended complaint he filed. This appeared to be a inadvertent failure and not a disregard of any district court order. Because the dismissal was with prejudice (the default position since the court did not specify), the district court failed to consider the multiple factors required before dismissal with prejudice.
Finally, the district court’s third reason for denial of amendment and dismissal–that any amendment would be futile-is reviewed de novo. It was not patently obvious that the Plaintiff would lose on his additional claims. Following the more liberal circuits’ interpretation of a series of Supreme Court decisions in a generally unsettled area of the law, the Tenth holds that a prisoner no longer in custody who cannot avail himself of habeas corpus to address issues of the unconstitutionality of his conviction, can use § 1983 to bring a civil rights action on the same claim (false imprisonment in this case). District court erred in determining that Plaintiff had no claim regarding the institution’s interference with his access to the courts in his legal filings. Plaintiff’s claim had merit that a prison mail clerk’s refusal to send out his legal mail caused his objections to the magistrate’s proposed findings on another civil matter not to be received by the court, in turn causing a waiver of those objections. Dismissal reversed.
posted by Anonymous at 8:47 AM
<< Home