United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for leave to
commence this action without payment of the required filing
fee. The motion will be granted, and plaintiff will be
assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See
28 U.S.C. §1915. Furthermore, based upon a review of the
complaint, the Court finds that because plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the Court will allow plaintiff to file an
amended complaint on the Court's form. Plaintiff has
thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file an
amended complaint in accordance with the specific
instructions set forth here.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if "it
lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An
action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the
Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in
favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly
baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
an inmate at the Western Missouri Correctional Center
("WMCC") in Cameron, Missouri, seeks monetary
relief in this action for the violation of his constitutional
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It appears that
plaintiffs allegations arise out of his incarceration at the
Moberly Correctional Center in 2014. Named as defendants are Paul
Jones, M.D. (Corizon Medical Services, Medical Director) and
Corizon Medical Services ("Corizon").
alleges in a conclusory fashion that Dr. Jones violated his
Eighth Amendment rights to be provided adequate medical care.
However, plaintiff has failed to allege exactly when and
where defendant Jones failed to provide him proper care.
Plaintiff has only alleged in a general fashion that
defendant failed to treat him when his injuries were "so
obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the
necessity for a doctor's attention." Plaintiff has
also complained, in a conclusory fashion, that Dr. Jones left
him with physical disfigurement. However, he has failed to
state exactly how Dr. Jones left him in such a state, and
whether the disfigurement was a result of Dr. Jones'
failure to treat plaintiff or as a result of an unexplained
or undiagnosed medical illness.
carefully reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that
dismissal is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
First, as stated above, plaintiff has failed to make personal
allegations against Dr. Jones in his complaint.
under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct
responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights."
Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir.
1990); see also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334,
1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under § 1983
where plaintiff fails to allege defendant was personally
involved in or directly responsible for incidents that
injured plaintiff); Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968
(8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in
§ 1983 suits).
instant action, plaintiff has not set forth any facts
indicating that Dr. Jones injured him on a specific date by
doing a specific act, or by omitting to engage in a specific
act. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
as currently pled, the complaint also fails to state a claim
against defendants due to the way in which plaintiff has
alleged his claims against defendants in their official
brings this action against Dr. Paul Jones in his official
capacity. See Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College,
72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995) (where a complaint is silent
about defendant's capacity, Court must interpret the
complaint as including official-capacity claims); Nix v.
Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). To state a
claim against a Corizon employee in his official capacity, a
plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of his employer
is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation.
See Monell v. Dept of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,
690-91 (1978). The instant complaint does not contain any
allegations that a policy or custom of Corizon was
responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiffs
constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint is legally
frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted as to both defendants Paul Jones and Corizon.
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow
plaintiff to amend his complaint rather than dismiss the
complaint at this time. Plaintiff is warned that the filing
of an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and
all previously-filed pleadings, so plaintiff must include
each and every one of the claims he wishes to pursue in the
amended complaint. See, e.g., In re Wireless Telephone
Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation,396 F.3d 922, 928
(8th Cir. 2005). Any claims from the original complaint,
supplements, and/or pleadings that are not included in the
amended complaint will be deemed abandoned and will not be
considered. Id. The allegations in the complaint
must show how each and every defendant is directly
responsible for the alleged harms. If plaintiff wishes to sue