United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
PATRICK L. CAMBRON, Plaintiff,
O'FALLON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD WEBBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Patrick L. Cambron for leave to proceed herein in forma
pauperis. The motion will be granted, and the complaint
will be dismissed.
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.
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must give it 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).
complaint consists of a series of disjointed, vague, and
conclusory statements. The allegations appear to stem from
incidents that occurred in plaintiff's home and in
municipal court. Named as defendants are the O'Fallon
Police Department, the St. Charles County Circuit Court, the
O'Fallon Courts, and eight individuals. Plaintiff does
not identify any of the individuals as state actors.
complaint spans 31 pages. In stating the grounds for filing
this case in federal court, plaintiff writes: “I'm
a military policeman who took an oath to protect and defend
the constitution. I did not take an oath to protect and
defend the ‘locals.' Non-transparency.”
(Docket No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff then purports to describe
events that occurred at his home:
On September 20, 2012 with a disabled veteran license plate
in my driveway. I lured the locals inside my house told them
they needed a warrant to come in.
Then emptied my pockets on my dresser underneath the plaque I
asked my Army unit to send to me after being in a motor
vehicle accident on the Autobahn. Although I asked for a
warrant which is in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of
the United States I really ran in my house for federal
protection which I was told I had as a disabled veteran M.P.
(Id. at 3).
also appears to describe being tased. He does not identify
the individuals involved in any of the events.
complaint continues in much the same manner, spanning a total
of 31 pages. It includes many pages of plaintiff's
writings about his experiences during military police school,
perceived corruption in the judicial system as a whole, other
court proceedings, police ...