Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cambron v. O'Fallon Police Department

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

February 13, 2017

PATRICK L. CAMBRON, Plaintiff,
v.
O'FALLON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          E. RICHARD WEBBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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.

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

         Under 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.

         When 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).

         The Complaint

         The 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.

         The 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).

         Plaintiff also appears to describe being tased. He does not identify the individuals involved in any of the events.

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.