United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
BRIAN K. GEORGE, Plaintiff,
DUNKLIN COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on plaintiff Brian K. George's
submission of an amended complaint. For the reasons explained
below, this case will be dismissed.
filed this civil action on January 17, 2017, naming eight
defendants. He moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis but did not submit the financial information
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). He was ordered to do
so, he timely complied, and he was granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Upon initial review of
plaintiff's original complaint, the Court noted numerous
defects, and granted plaintiff leave to submit an amended
complaint. On March 13, 2017, plaintiff complied, and the
Court now reviews the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
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, 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.
action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in
either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action is factually frivolous if the
facts alleged are “clearly baseless, ” which is
defined as “fanciful, ” “delusional,
” or “fantastic.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
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”).
amended complaint, plaintiff indicates that he intends to
proceed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). However, plaintiff does not allege that
any of the defendants are federal officials. Plaintiff
alleges violation of his civil rights, and names the
following nine defendants: the Dunklin County Jail, the
Dunklin County Parole Office, the Dunklin County Court, Daren
Todd, Cassie Duncan, Jared Suthard, ERDCC (the Eastern
Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center), the Dunklin
County Sheriff's Department, and Terry Keys. Plaintiff
does not specify the capacity in which he sues the
defendants. He seeks various forms of relief that are not
alleges that, while incarcerated in the Dunklin County Jail
in 2008, a group of people obscured surveillance cameras with
fiber optic camouflage as depicted on a YouTube video, and
sprayed mace under plaintiff's cell door. Plaintiff
alleges that surveillance cameras from 2009, 2010, 2012,
2014, and 2015 reveal that such practices are used to allow
people to enter the jail. Plaintiff also alleges that in
August through December of 2014, unspecified people entered
his home illegally. Plaintiff references surveillance
cameras, states that “they” destroyed his home,
states that a person not named as a defendant entered his
home, and states that he wants a subpoena for 2012 telephone
records from AT&T and 2014 telephone records from
Verizon. (Docket No. 11 at 14). Plaintiff states that unnamed
people are responsible for various forms of criminal and
civil wrongdoing, including obstructing justice, damaging
property, aggravated stalking, home invasion, civil
disobedience, harassment, assault, sexual abuse, sodomy, and
acts of terrorism. Plaintiff states that “they”
tried to murder him, and states there was human waste in his
food and drink and on the bedsheets at the Bonne Terre
prison. (Id. at 15). Plaintiff alleges that
“they” have been trying for years to murder him
and that “they” tried to run him off the road in
a car. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that his former
attorney and parole officer had a conflict of interest, and
speculates regarding an improper relationship. These
allegations track those set forth in the original complaint,
which the Court found defective. Much of the remainder of the
amended complaint is incomprehensible.
amended complaint wholly fails to demonstrate any plausible
claim for relief against any defendant. None of plaintiff s
allegations allow this Court to draw the reasonable inference
that any defendant is liable for any misconduct. See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. At best, the amended complaint
contains only legal conclusions and generalized statements.
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. This case is therefore
subject to dismissal because plaintiff fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted against any defendant.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In addition,
the Court finds the factual allegations in the complaint to
be delusional and fanciful, and therefore clearly baseless.
See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33. The Court concludes
that this action is factually frivolous, and will dismiss it
for this reason as well. See 28 U.S.C. §
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without
prejudice because the amended complaint is factually
frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be