United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner currently incarcerated at Saint Genevieve County
Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Having reviewed plaintiffs financial information, the Court
assesses a partial initial filing fee of $19.50, which is
twenty percent of his average monthly deposit. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 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 draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679. When
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
who is currently incarcerated at Saint Genevieve Detention
Center, brings this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),  alleging
violations of his civil rights. He brings this action against
nine defendants: Detective Matthew Black; United States
Attorney Richard G. Callahan; Assistant United States
Attorney Howard Marcus; Assistant United States Attorney
Jennifer Winfield; Sergeant Adam Kavanagh; Paul Yadlosky;
John Halliday; Mike Slaughter; and Jared Queen.
January 12, 2017, plaintiff was found guilty by a jury trial
of: (1) one count of transportation of a minor to engage in a
commercial sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1591(a)(1), 1591(b)(2); (2) two counts of attempted
transportation of a minor to engage in a commercial sex act,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1),
1591(b)(2); and (3) six counts of transportation with intent
to engage in prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2421(a). See United States v. Parks, 4:15CR553 JAR
(E.D.Mo.). Plaintiff was sentenced to a total term of 300
months' imprisonment. Id.
"Statement of Claim" in the instant complaint,
plaintiff seemingly refers to his criminal conviction in some
manner when he states, "Detective Matthew Black planted
evidence in my van on the date of December 4, 2015. Richard
G. Callahan was informed and did nothing." For each of
the additional defendants he states that they "were
informed" or "knew evidence was planted" and
allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted as stated. He has failed to articulate any factual
allegations in his complaint relative to each of the
individual defendants. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
In order to state a claim under either a Bivens or
§ 1983 action, plaintiff must articulate, for each
individual defendant, exactly how that person violated his
under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct
responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights."
See Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th
Cir. 1990); see also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d
1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under §
1983 where plaintiff fails to allege defendant was personally
involved in or directly responsible for incidents that
injured plaintiff); Boyd v. Knox, Al F.3d 966, 968
(8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in
§ 1983 suits).
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow
plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the Court's
form. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of this
Order to file an amended complaint in accordance with the
specific instructions set forth here. All claims in the
action must be included in one, centralized complaint form.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(1), 8(a).
plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint
replaces the original complaint and all previously-filed
pleadings, so plaintiff must include each and every one of
the claims he wishes to pursue in the amended complaint.
See, e.g., In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery
Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). Any
claims from the original complaint, supplements, and/or
pleadings that are not included in the amended complaint will
be deemed abandoned and will not be considered. Id.
The allegations in the complaint must show how each and every
defendant is directly responsible for the alleged harms. If
plaintiff wishes to sue defendants in their individual
capacities, plaintiff must specifically say so in the amended
complaint. If plaintiff fails to sue defendants in their
individual capacities, this action may be subject to
plaintiffs claims should be clearly set forth in the
"Statement of Claim." If plaintiff fails to file an
amended complaint on the Court's form within thirty (30)
days and in compliance with the Court's instructions, the
Court will ...