Miles v. Ertl Co., 83-2334
| Decision Date | 19 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2334,83-2334 |
| Parties | 33 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1123, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,994 Gerry MILES, Appellant, v. ERTL COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
Gerry Miles appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to comply with the formal requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1), 8(a)(2), 8(e)(1), 10(a), 10(c), and 12(e), and local rules 1.10.2, 1.10.4, and 1.10.6. We believe dismissal was improper and we reverse.
Miles alleges discriminatory disciplinary treatment by the Ertl Company. He was suspended for eight days when he slapped a female employee in response to her use of a racial slur; the woman was suspended for four days. Ertl then warned all employees that they would be fired for fighting or using racial slurs. Four months later, after repeated harassment by white workers, Miles slapped one of his antagonists and was fired.
After an unsuccessful hearing before the Iowa Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miles sued in federal court. The district court granted Ertl's motion to strike the complaint for noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Miles was given leave to amend his complaint. To correct the deficiencies in the complaint, the district court suggested that Miles address the procedural history and jurisdictional basis of the suit and specify the names of defendants, the facts underlying each cause of action, and the nature of relief sought. Miles responded with an illegible letter which essentially reiterated his complaint. The complaint was dismissed and Miles appealed to this Court.
Pro se pleadings must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). This Court has observed that, "in circumstances where a petitioner's poverty forces him to proceed pro se, a court ought not to reject on technical grounds a right asserted within the hand-drawn (pro se ) complaint." Drone v. Hutto, 565 F.2d 543, 544 (8th Cir.1977).
While the principle of liberal construction must be limited by reasonableness United States ex rel. Dattola v. National Treasury Employees Union, 86 F.R.D. 496, 499 (W.D.Pa.1980), we believe that reasonableness does not compel dismissal of this case. The formal requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure exist to give the defendant fair notice of the charges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oldham v. Chandler-Halford
...must be given fair notice of the claims so that they may make a meaningful response to the pleadings. Miles v. Ertl Co., 722 F.2d 434, 434-35 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam). 3 Indeed, the fifth cause of action identifies only the Fourteenth Amendment as the source of the rights violated by the......
-
DePugh v. Smith
...must be given fair notice of the claims so that they may make a meaningful response to the pleadings. Miles v. ERTL Co., 722 F.2d 434, 434-35 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam). The court finds that paragraph 21 of the Complaint makes plain that DePugh is attempting to assert a Fourteenth Amendmen......
-
Evicci v. Baker, CIV.A.00-10749-WGY.
...Rohler v. TRW, Inc., 576 F.2d 1260, 1267 (7th Cir.1978) (requiring court to amend erroneous jurisdictional statement); Miles v. Ertl Co., 722 F.2d 434, 435 (8th Cir.1983) (reversing district court's dismissal of a case wherein the facts arguably asserted a cause of action, but the complaint......
-
Cartwright v. Nebrasks, 8:14CV246
...Eighth Circuit law and determined she had pled claims under the FHA and NFHA. (See Filing No. 28 at 9 & 11-16 (citing Miles v. Ertl Co., 722 F.2d 434 (8th Cir. 1983)).) Nonetheless, Cartwright had the burden to present evidence demonstrating a dispute of material fact to resist Defendants' ......