United States District Court, E.D. Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's
amended complaint. Based upon a review of the amended
complaint, the Court finds that the complaint should be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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. A pleading that offers “labels
and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do, ” 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”).
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated in the St. Louis County Justice Center. He filed
the present action on April 3, 2017, against three
defendants. The Court reviewed his complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and found it subject to dismissal for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Nonetheless, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
plaintiff was provided with time to amend his pleading.
plaintiff's amended complaint, he has named ten (10)
individuals and entities as defendants in this action,
including: the State of Missouri; Brentwood Police
Department; Police Officer Unknown Presson; Sergeant Unknown
Carmen; Police Officer Sullivan; Judge Tom DePriest; Judge
Brian May; Prosecutor Jeffrey Pauck; Public Defender Travis
Martin; and Public Defender Stephen Reynolds.
has not provided the Court with a full “Statement of
Claim” in his amended complaint. Plaintiff has stated
generally that he was subjected to “cruel and unusual
punishment” and “due process [violations]”
and “assault.” He has not stated the dates of the
alleged violations or who purportedly perpetrated such
violations in his “Statement of Claim.” Instead,
in the section of the amended complaint marked,
“Relief, ” plaintiff has stated:
Subpoena video from Brentwood I-64 MetroLink Station on
7-13-16, 10:22p-11:00pm, See mugshots from University City PD
on 7-14-16 & mugshots from St. Louis County Justice
Center on 7-15-16 for verification, afforded legal
representation, a jury trial & 1 million dollars.
brings this action against defendants in their official
capacities only. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
a government official in his or her official capacity is the
equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the
official. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To state a claim against
a municipality or a government official in his or her
official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that a
policy or custom of the government entity is
responsible for the alleged constitutional violation.
Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S.
658, 690-91 (1978) (emphasis added). The instant complaint
does not contain any allegations that a policy or custom of
St. Louis County was responsible for the alleged violations
of plaintiff's constitutional rights. Therefore, the
complaint, as a whole, fails to state a claim against which
relief may be granted.
the complaint is legally frivolous against the entity known
as “Brentwood Police Department” because this
entity is not subject to suit. See Ketchum v. City of
West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992)
(departments or subdivisions of local government are
“not juridical entities suable as such.”).
Furthermore, the State of Missouri, is absolutely immune ...