Elizabeth Liggon-Redding v. Roslyn Souser, Dr.

DLD-044 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3394
___________
ELIZABETH LIGGON-REDDING,
Appellant
v.
ROSLYN SOUSER, DR.; MAIN LINE HOSP INC.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 09-cv-02924)
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a
Jurisdictional Defect and Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 13, 2009
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN AND HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 17, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Elizabeth Liggon-Redding appeals pro se from the order of the District Court
denying her motion for reconsideration. We will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. LAR

-- 1 of 3 --

2
27.4 (2008); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
Liggon-Redding submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis together with a
one-page complaint alleging that appellee Roslyn Souser, a physician, “mutilated” her
then answered her with a racial slur when she complained. By order entered July 9, 2009,
the District Court simultaneously granted Liggon-Redding’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismissed her complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Liggon-Redding then timely filed a motion
for reconsideration, which we construe as a motion under Rule 59(e), arguing, among
other things, that her complaint satisfies the requirements of Rule 8(a). The District Court
denied that motion by order entered July 27, 2009, and Liggon-Redding appeals.
Liggon-Redding has appealed the denial of her Rule 59(e) motion, which brings up
for review the District Court’s earlier order dismissing her complaint as well. See CTC
Imports and Exports v. Nigerian Petroleum Corp., 951 F.2d 573, 577 (3d Cir. 1991).
Because the District Court’s underlying order merely dismissed the complaint without
prejudice, it ordinarily would not constitute a final order. See Borelli v. City of Reading,
532 F.2d 950, 951 (3d Cir. 1976). Liggon-Redding’s insistence that her complaint
complies with Rule 8(a), however, indicates her intent to stand on it. Thus, we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See id. at 951-52. We review for abuse of
discretion the District Court’s dismissal under Rule 8(a), see In re Westinghouse Secs.
Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702, (3d Cir. 1996), and its refusal to reconsider that ruling, see
Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We perceive no abuse of discretion here.
The District Court did not specify why Liggon-Redding’s complaint fails to
comply with Rule 8(a), but it clearly fails to comply with all three sub-parts of that rule: it
fails to plead the grounds for the District Court’s jurisdiction, it fails to state a claim
showing that Liggon-Redding is entitled to relief, and it fails to request any particular
relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). Thus, the District Court’s dismissal without
prejudice was entirely appropriate. The District Court did not specifically state that
Liggon-Redding had leave to file an amended complaint, but we have no concerns in that
regard. Liggon-Redding gave no indication in her Rule 59(e) motion that she could or
would amend her complaint to assert an actionable claim in compliance with Rule 8(a).
To the contrary, her motion indicates that she already has litigated her dispute with Dr.
Souser in state court and that she views her federal action as an “appeal” of the state
court’s ruling. Under the circumstances, the District Court acted well within its discretion
in dismissing the complaint without prejudice, and we will summarily affirm.

-- 3 of 3 --