Kevin Young v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 851 n.5 3d Cir. 1992 . 3 Young requested…

HLD-060 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2976
___________
KEVIN YOUNG,
Appellant
vs.
WENDY DEMEHICK, MEEF; JUDGE C. PIERCE, MEEF; JEFFREY R. DELP,
MEEF; DONALD J. GRACIA, MEEF; WILLIAM J. CIATIANIA, MEEF; NIKKI
HOLLER, MEEF; LINDIA GREGORY MIASCARO, INC.; CPL MOYER, MEEF; LT.
BIATES, MEEF; C/O HIPPLE, MEEF; C/O STEWART, MEEF; MR. ROTHMAN,
MEEF; MR. ALLENSON, MEEF; C/O STEWART, MEEF, MR. ROTHMAN, MEEF;
MR. ALLENSON, MEEF; C/O FRAN, MEEF, CIATAINIA, Warden, C/O GRAY BILL,
MEEF; MR. BUCCI, MEEF; C/O DAVIS, MEEF; MAJOR MARTIN, MEEF;
GOVERNOR OF STATE; MONTGOMERY CO.; EGLEVILLE BUREAU; J.A. FREY,
MEEF; J.M. ALGARIN, MEEF; R. CIARRILLO, MEEF; C/O PENTAGRASS, MEEF
Witness; D.J. MOLYNEAUR, MEEF Warden; SGT. GRIFFIN, MEEF; MAJOR
OHINEGER, MEEF; MAJOR MARTIN, MEEF; J P MASEAROS, INC. TRASH
COMPANY; MR. TIM O’CONNOR, for Masciaro, Inc.; PAT MASCARO COMPANY,
INC.; MRS. ANN, for Mascaro, Inc.; MRS. PATTY, for Mascaro, Inc.; CHARLIE
SHECK, for Mascaro, Inc.; DR. DHERAJ TARANATH, for Medical Center; C/O
BANKS, MEEF Witness; C/O DIAZ, MEEF Witness; BURGER KING, Mrs. Eddie
(Also) Mr. Noal (Also) Mrs. Torrie Williams; RYAN INCH, Mascaro, Inc.; SHIRLEY
BAYLE, MEEF; EILLEN STEILMAN, MEEF; MRS. AUGUSTINE, MEEF (Witness
Only); MRS KEELY, MEEF (Witness Only); MR. GIBBLE, MEEF; GALIARDO,
Witness Only - Meef; NANCY T. MCFARLAND, MEEF
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Civil No. 08-cv-04648)
District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to Jurisdictional Defect and Possible Dismissal

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR
27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 30, 2009
Before: Chief Judge SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 29, 2010)
____________
OPINION
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Young, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an
order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
dismissing his complaint. We will affirm.
Young filed a civil rights action in District Court against fifty defendants.
The District Court dismissed Young’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),
explaining that the complaint was rambling and unclear and deprived the defendants of
sufficient notice to respond to his claims. The District Court afforded Young 30 days to
file an amended complaint, stating that he must set forth the specific events or conditions
which violated his constitutional rights, the name and place of employment of each
person who violated his constitutional rights, the dates on which his constitutional rights
were violated, the harm he suffered, if any, from each violation, and the specific relief
sought.

-- 2 of 4 --

This appeal raises a question of appellate jurisdiction because the District Court’s1
order was arguably not final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Young, however, elected
to stand on his complaint by filing a notice of appeal in lieu of an amended complaint.
The time for filing an amended complaint has now passed and we thus have jurisdiction
to consider Young’s appeal pursuant to § 1291. Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d
848, 851 n.5 (3d Cir. 1992).
3
Young requested additional time to comply with the District Court’s order,
and, on May 27, 2009, the District Court granted Young an additional days 30 to file an
amended complaint.
Before the District Court entered its order, Young had filed a voluminous
number of documents, which he appears to have intended to serve as his amended
complaint or as exhibits to an amended complaint. In a memorandum dated June 24,
2009, the District Court noted that Young had submitted over 1,100 pages of material to
the Court, which did not comply with the requirements for an amended complaint or with
the District Court’s previous order. The District Court set forth the pleading requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and informed Young that he should re-submit any
documents he had sent to the court if he wished to incorporate them in his amended
complaint. The District Court gave Young an additional 30 days to file an amended
complaint, noting that the failure to do so might result in the dismissal of his case with
prejudice. This appeal followed.1
We agree with the District Court that Young’s complaint fails to satisfy the
pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). Young’s complaint advances claims of retaliation

-- 3 of 4 --

In his response to this Court’s notice of possible summary action, Young states that2
he was transferred from Montgomery County Prison to work release, that he was stuck
with a dirty needle while at work at a landfill, and that he contracted hepatitis. Young
also complains about the conditions of his confinement at Montgomery County Prison,
which he asserts included beatings by prison staff, a cell without running water, and
deprivation of medical treatment and access to the law library. Because his complaint
was dismissed without prejudice, Young may include these factual allegations in a new
complaint if he decides to pursue his claims.
4
and denial of access to the courts against a number of defendants without alleging any
supporting facts. He also asserts that other defendants are responsible for giving him an
infection, that others provided unsafe work conditions, and that others took money from
his prison account. Young has not provided the defendants with fair notice of his claims
and/or the grounds upon which they rest. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). The District Court did not err in requiring Young to file an amended
complaint in order to pursue his claims. In addition, the District Court correctly stated
that Young’s submission of a multitude of documents in support of his complaint did not
comply with its order to file an amended complaint.2
Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the District Court’s order.
_________________________

-- 4 of 4 --