Haley v. Kansas City Star

• Decision Date: 07 June 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-1725,84-1725
• Citation: 761 F.2d 489
• Parties: Samuel E. HALEY, Jr., Appellant, v. The KANSAS CITY STAR, The Kansas City Times, The President, The Owner, The Reporters, The Writers, et al., WDAF T.V. Station, Mr. Terrence Connelly, et al., The Columbia Daily Tribune, Reporters, Writers, et al., The Missourian Newspapers in Columbia, Missouri, Reporters, Writers, et al., The Macon County, Missouri Newspaper, Reporters, Writers, et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 489

761 F.2d 489

1 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1076

Samuel E. HALEY, Jr., Appellant, v. The KANSAS CITY STAR, The Kansas City Times, The President The Owner, The Reporters, The Writers, et al., WDAF T.V Station, Mr. Terrence Connelly, et al., The Columbia Daily Tribune, Reporters, Writers, et al., The Missourian Newspapers in Columbia, Missouri, Reporters, Writers, et al., The Macon County, Missouri Newspaper, Reporters Writers, et al., Appellees.

No. 84-1725.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 10, 1985.

Decided May 8, 1985.

As Amended June 7, 1985.

Julia F. Blakeslee, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

No brief filed for appellees.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, and WOODS, ^* District Judge.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Samuel E. Haley, Jr., appeals from a final order entered in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissing his civil rights complaint with prejudice for want of jurisdiction and as frivolous. For reversal appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint with prejudice because of his court-appointed attorney's noncompliance with the district court's orders. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.

Appellant, an inmate of the Missouri Department of Corrections, filed two related pro se complaints in May 1981 under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982). An in forma pauperis affidavit was also filed, and the complaints were provisionally filed. The first complaint, consisting of sixteen handwritten pages, named as defendants newspapers in Kansas City, Columbia, and Macon County, the owners of the newspapers, and many of the newspapers' reporters and writers. The claims basically center around pretrial publicity generated by appellees and the allegedly untrue news stories about appellant, which appellant alleged deprived him of a fair trial and slandered his good name. The second complaint, consisting of twenty-six handwritten pages, named twelve defendants, all of whom were involved in some way in appellant's conviction, e.g., the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and police officers. The second complaint alleges that these defendants conspired to deny him a fair trial by using false testimony and by generating false pretrial publicity. Because these complaints contained related allegations concerning pretrial publicity and other circumstances surrounding appellant's trial, the cases were consolidated.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaints, the district court in March 1982 appointed an attorney ¹ to represent appellant in the action and granted the attorney thirty days within which to inform the court how he intended to proceed in the matter. On September 13, 1982, and on February 17, 1984, the district court again ordered appellant's attorney to inform the court in writing how he intended to proceed in the matter. The district court, by its February 17, 1984, order, directed appellant's attorney to prepare and file on or before February 29, 1984, either a formal amended complaint together with a detailed statement of the facts and evidence supporting appellant's claim or a motion to withdraw as counsel based on the attorney's informed belief that appellant's claim was totally frivolous or meritless. The time for complying with this order was subsequently extended to April 20, 1984. Appellant's attorney at his request was advanced $61.50 for transportation to and from Jefferson City, Missouri, to interview appellant.

On May 3, 1984, the district court, noting that appellant's attorney had failed to comply with the court's order and had failed to file either a formal amended complaint or a motion to withdraw, dismissed both cases for failure to prosecute and as frivolous. In addition, the district court denied appellant's motion for unconditional leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This court by order of July 1984 granted appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaints with prejudice because of the inaction of his attorney. Appellant argues that it is clear from the record that the attorney failed to comply with the court's orders and that the district court penalized appellant by dismissing his complaints rather than taking action against the appointed attorney for his failure to carry out his professional and ethical obligations to appellant. Appellant argues that he did not share in the attorney's failure to comply with the court orders. Appellant asserts that as an indigent prisoner he was unable to employ his own ...