United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court upon the motion of plaintiff
Dominique Jannielle There Guillory for leave to proceed
herein in forma pauperis. The Court has reviewed the
financial information submitted in support, and will grant
the motion. The Court will also dismiss the complaint.
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss
a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. To state a claim for relief under
§ 1983, a complaint must plead more than “legal
conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a
plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to,
inter alia, draw upon judicial experience and common
sense. Id. at 679.
conducting initial review pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). However, this does not mean that pro se
complaints may be merely conclusory. Even pro se
complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state
a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v.
Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see
also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.
2004) (federal courts are not required to “assume facts
that are not alleged, just because an additional factual
allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). In
addition, affording a pro se complaint the benefit
of a liberal construction does not mean that procedural rules
in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to
excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See
McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
names “United States Federal Government” as the
sole defendant in this action.
claims for relief, plaintiff writes:
Give me all of my money back that was ever taken from me. For
sending dirty cops to ruin my life! I want all the credit
card fraud gone and drugs off the STREET TODAY!
(Docket No. 1 at 4) (emphasis in original).
relief, plaintiff writes that she wants “every dollar
it owes me (every penny).” Id.
the United States, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a waiver
of sovereign immunity, and a grant of subject matter
jurisdiction. V S Ltd. Partnership v. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 235 F.3d 1109, 112
(8th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has failed to so demonstrate. In
addition, plaintiffs allegations are conclusory and
nonsensical. Even pro se complaints are required to
allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a
matter of law, Martin, 623 F.2d at 1286, and this
Court will not assume facts that are not alleged simply
because doing so would form a stronger complaint.
Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15. The complaint will
therefore be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice. A separate order of ...