United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the filing of plaintiff Kevin
Kunlay Williams's amended complaint. For the reasons
stated below, the Court finds that the amended complaint
should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
filed his original complaint on May 8, 2017. He neither paid
the filing fee nor moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and on May 10, 2017, the Court ordered him to
do one or the other. In so doing, the Court instructed
plaintiff that, if he chose file a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, he must also submit an
inmate account statement for the six-month period immediately
preceding the filing of the complaint. On May 23, 2017,
plaintiff filed a letter and a copy of his inmate account
statement. However, he neither paid the filing fee nor filed
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
the time for doing so had passed. However, because it
appeared that plaintiff attempted to comply with the
Court's Order, and in consideration of his pro
se status, the Court sua sponte gave him
additional time to comply, which he did.
Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, and conducted initial review of
the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The
Court noted that the complaint was subject to dismissal, and
allowed plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended
complaint. In so doing, the Court clearly instructed
plaintiff that he was required to set forth specific factual
allegations supporting his claim or claims against each
defendant he wished to sue. The Court also cautioned
plaintiff that his failure to make specific allegations
against any defendant would result in the dismissal of his
case against that defendant. Plaintiff timely filed an
amended complaint, which the Court now reviews pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Standard on Initial Review
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. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). A pleading that offers “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action” is insufficient, nor
will a complaint suffice if it tenders bare assertions devoid
of “further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
conducting initial review pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must accept as true the allegations in the complaint,
and must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). However, the tenet that a court must accept the
allegations as true does not apply to legal conclusions,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and 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). 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”).
ten-count amended complaint, plaintiff names as defendant
Larry Crawford, the Director of the St. Charles County Jail.
Plaintiff sues Crawford in his individual capacity. Plaintiff
sets forth many claims that he purports to bring on behalf of
the inmate population of the jail.
count one, plaintiff alleges that jail staffing and the
jail's KIOSK communication system are inadequate, causing
prisoners to wait for long periods of time. In count two,
plaintiff alleges that the Department of Corrections provides
only thin mattresses to prisoners. In count three, plaintiff
alleges that prisoners must wait long periods to visit the
jail's law library, and are not allowed to use the St.
Charles County Courthouse law library. In count four,
plaintiff alleges that a prisoner complained that peanut
butter caused him to have hives, but the St. Charles County
Jail Food Administrator continued to offer him peanut butter.
Plaintiff also alleges that the St. Charles County Department
of Corrections does not have an allergy specialist on staff,
that St. Charles County refused to allow a prisoner to use
allergy medicine from home, and refused to let the prisoner
know whether he was really allergic to peanut butter. In
count five, plaintiff alleges that federal prisoners are
housed with state inmates. In count six, plaintiff alleges
that the St. Charles County Department of Corrections does
not provide proper medical care for inmates, and the jail
doctor is abusive. In count seven, plaintiff alleges that St.
Charles County Department of Corrections makes excessive
profits from inmates via the commissary. In count eight,
plaintiff alleges that the St. Charles County Jail refused to
provide prisoners with copies of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and court local rules. In count nine, plaintiff
alleges that the St. Charles County Department of Corrections
feeds prisoners stale bread, and the Food Department plays
games with the prisoners by ignoring various dietary
restrictions and prisoner health issues. Plaintiff also
alleges that prisoners must pay high postage prices or mail
will be returned to the sender. In count ten, plaintiff
alleges that the St. Charles County Department of Corrections
does not provide services for paying a legal assistant, and
should allow prisoners to withdraw money from their trust
funds at any time.
August 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a document titled
“Additional Statement of Claim & Facts to the Above
Cause” (hereafter “Additional Statement”)
(Docket No. 11). Therein, plaintiff purports to bring
additional claims on behalf of prisoners at the jail. He
alleges, inter alia, that the KIOSK system makes it
difficult for prisoners to file and pursue grievances, and to
prove that they have done so. Plaintiff also alleges that he
personally asked to “file a request to the jail
administration requesting for a copy of the request sent to
the social caseworker department of Saint Charles County
Department of Correction, ” but that his request was
denied with the statement “sorry we do not provide such
services.” (Id. at 2-3).
amended complaint, plaintiff does not expressly allege that
he personally suffered any loss. Instead, he refers to the
inmate population as a whole, and also at times to an
unidentified prisoner. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring
claims alleging mistreatment of other inmates. Instead, he
must allege a personal loss. See Martin v. Sargent,
780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Further, plaintiff is
not a ...