United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MONICA SWIFT MANNING, in the Interest of R.M. and E.S., Plaintiffs,
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHARLES A. SHAW DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon plaintiff Monica Swift
Manning's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court has reviewed the financial information plaintiff
submitted in support of the motion, and has determined that
plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. The Court will
therefore grant the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In
addition, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court shall 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 from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it
“lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989);
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A
complaint fails to state a claim 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).
determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step
inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in
the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950-51
(2009). These include “legal conclusions” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements.” Id. at 1949. Second, the Court
must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim
for relief. Id. at 1950-51. This is a
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required
to plead facts that show more than the “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 1950. The
Court must review the factual allegations in the complaint
“to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement
to relief.” Id. at 1951.
pleadings are liberally construed, and are held to a less
stringent standard when considering a dismissal of the case
for failure to state a claim. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d
209, 211 n.3 (8th Cir. 1984). Even so, a pro se complaint
must contain specific facts to support its conclusions.
Kaylor v. Fields, 661 F.2d 1177, 1183 (8th Cir.
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
alleging violations of her children's rights. Named as
defendants are the Missouri Department of
Education and four individuals: Dave Gerber, Donna
Cash, Maureen Clancy Mae, and Julia Conwell. Plaintiff
provides no information regarding whether the four
individuals are employed by or otherwise associated with the
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education or
the Missouri State Board of Education. Plaintiff seeks only
statement of claim, plaintiff alleges as follows:
In September of 2014 I made Mo. Dept of Education aware of
several education concerns I was having with regards to my
children E.S. and R.M. These concerns have grown and
escalated since that time. With respect to my children I
should state now that I claim discrimination on behalf of the
Department with regards to their decisions regard the
childrens rights [sic] pertaining to the Hazelwood
School District and their adherence to the McKinney Vento
Act. Also with regards to R.M. special education
(Docket No. 1 at 3-4).
complaint contains no other allegations.
Court has carefully considered plaintiff's complaint, and
has determined that it is subject ...