United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
WILLIE B. ROSS-PATTERSON, Plaintiff,
PRECIOUS M. SMITH Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of pro se
plaintiff Willie B. Ross-Patterson for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court has considered the
financial information submitted in support, and will grant
the motion. After review, the Court will also dismiss the
complaint without prejudice.
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, 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
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).
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Smith was a case manager
employed by the Missouri Department of Social Services, and
that defendant Willis was a volunteer court-appointed special
advocate and/or a guardian ad litem. All parties are
alleges that Smith took actions and made statements that were
upsetting and insulting, and that resulted in plaintiffs
great grandchild being placed in a foster home. Plaintiff
offers no details regarding the proceedings that resulted in
the child's custody placement. He does not allege that he
ever had physical or legal custody of the child. Instead, he
sets forth allegations such as:
Precious Smith CD case manager used her authority unethically
to hurt me from her revenge she used my great grandson as her
weapon towards hurting me from knowing how much I love my
Smith have misused her Authority to build an illegal case to
remove child from his great grandmother home of love
Smith had [a counselor] give a letter belittling towards me
someone Smith knew I fired her after 30 days of hire for her
unprofessional and unfairness to the child for not keeping
her schedule appointments using bizarre reasons and shouting
Smith also went to child old school and was only able to get
words I stated in a letter to the social worker Mr. Fredrick
Minner, who assisted her in trying to place child in a
Residential Home at 504 meeting May 28, 2016.
(Docket No. 1 at 3).
alleges that Willis visited his home on September 29, 2016
and "sat at the same table he has shared dinner with
Child and me and underhanded something to child that caused
him to walk away and say he can see himself ...