United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
ABDUL AYAT MOHAMMED BEY, a/k/a Ronald B. Britt-Bey, Plaintiff,
FRANCIS SLAY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA L. COHEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiff to
proceed in forma pauperis. Having reviewed the
financial information submitted in support of the motion, the
Court determines that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing
fee. The motion will therefore be granted. In addition,
Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to submit an amended
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).
should be noted that Plaintiff is a very frequent pro
se and in forma pauperis litigator in this
Court. In the instant case, the complaint is defective for
several reasons. First, it was not drafted using the
Court's form. See E.D. Mo. Local Rule 2.06(A).
It is far too long, and largely illegible. It fails to
conform with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and it purports to bring multiple unrelated claims
against not one but eight defendants, an impermissible
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will give
him an opportunity to file an amended complaint. In so doing,
Plaintiff should select the transaction or occurrence he
wishes to pursue, and limit the facts and allegations to the
defendant(s) involved therein. Plaintiff should only include
claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence,
or simply put, claims that are related to each other.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Alternatively,
Plaintiff may choose a single defendant and set forth as many
claims as he has against that defendant. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 18(a).
must prepare the amended complaint using a Court-provided
form, and must follow Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. In the “Caption” section of the
form complaint, Plaintiff should write the name of the
defendant(s) he wishes to sue. In the “Statement of
Claim” section, Plaintiff should begin by writing the
defendant's name. In separate, numbered paragraphs under
that name, Plaintiff should: (1) set forth the factual
allegations supporting his claim against that defendant; (2)
state what constitutional or federal statutory right(s) that
defendant violated; and (3) state whether the defendant is
being sued in his/her individual capacity or official
capacity. If Plaintiff is suing more than one
defendant, he shall proceed in this manner with each one,
separately writing each individual defendant's name and,
under that name, in numbered paragraphs, the allegations
specific to that particular defendant and the right(s) that
shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order
to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is warned that the
filing of the amended complaint completely replaces the
original. Claims that are not re-alleged are deemed
abandoned. E.g., In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost
Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928
(8th Cir. 2005).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit an amended
complaint in accordance with the instructions set forth
herein within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to
Plaintiff a blank Civil Rights Complaint form.
Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Memorandum and
Order, the Court will dismiss this action without ...