Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thompson v. Anderson

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

October 25, 2017

QUANSA LESHAL THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL ANDERSON, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Quansa Leshal Thompson, a patient at Metropolitan Psychiatric Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff's motion and affidavit in support, the Court finds that plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court will grant her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will order plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order.

         Standard of Review

         Under 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.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff brings this § 1983 action against four employees of the Metropolitan Psychiatric Center (“MPC”): Dr. Michael Anderson, the Chief Operating Officer; Dr. Roy Wilson, Director of Medicine; and Drs. Edwin Wolfgram and Bridget A. Graham, psychiatrists.

         Plaintiff states that Dr. Graham misdiagnosed her with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders using information about plaintiff publicly available on the Internet. She claims this misdiagnosis caused the State of Missouri to violate her rights to life, liberty, and property “by hindering my Due Process.” Plaintiff has attached to her complaint four exhibits, including Exhibit IV, an “affidavit of rebuttal.”[1] In her affidavit, plaintiff states the following regarding Dr. Graham:

. . . It's also published that the “founders” of the republic, felt that my ancestors were so far inferior that they had no rights which a “white” man was bound to respect; even without the Supreme Court reversal, it is apparent those same inherited sentiments are extant by those like Ms. Graham who exhibits her dogmatic perspective throughout her report. Ms. Graham omitted stating in the listed source of information where she inferred her sole data drawing this erroneous inference, the internet: google, you tube, sound cloud, and other social media sites. Following our introduction, Ms. Graham immediately started asking personal evaluating questions in a condescending tone, in which I referred her to the letter in prebut [sic] sent to the examiner prior to the appointment. Ms. Graham acknowledged being in receipt of it (as I observed the letter on her clipboard), and reaching the theories of the debunked psychiatrist Samuel L. Cartwright's diagnosis of “Drapetomania.” Neither of us expounding on the topic. So, occupying the time I commenced speaking on general yet relevant subject matters of this case. Things I often talk about to any member of the public, starting with a few events leading up to the afflictions and their effects on me emotionally, none of which she mentions. The entire “interview” was spent with me reiterating everything that had been written in motions and affidavits to the courts, and information about my musical content. I sited [sic] where these things could be found and from reading this offensive, presumptuous, demeaning, defaming, and quite painfully fabricated opinions of my adjudicative competency, it is clear her damnous opinion is concluded from published interviews, news articles, and other social media sites. Where is the equity or even the ethics in writing a “expert” opinion derived from information on ex ingenio and public forums, something any novice can do. This is mere inference-on-inference. The examiner is deficient in adeptness to judge the discretion of my actions as I asked her did she know Torah laws in which she declined. But the natural man received not the things of the spirit of YHWH (GOD): For they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of NO MAN. For who hath known the mind of the LORD (GOD) YHWH, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of the Messiah-1 Corinthians 2:14. Even the law of Missouri in which she practice says that ALL men have a natural and indefensible right to worship Almighty GOD according to the dictates of their consciences; that NO HUMAN “Authority” can control or interfere with the rights of consciences- Missouri Constitution Article I. Section 5. Knowing this Ms. Graham's malicious and despicable description of me as some demented, psychotic, bible toting icon who is unable to discern reality, insinuating I used jargon like Almighty GOD, the Human Realm, transition, and quite a few other aloof statements she falsely reported me making. Ms. Graham has used my circumstances to entirely distort, fabricate, and report a false testimony that my history is somehow “rooted in delusion” when in fact I have affirmative and conditional proof all events or occurrences are real. These things are documented and public information. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness if I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
During the conversation Ms. Graham initiated asking me probing evaluation questions in which I stopped her from doing. She tells me “I'm just doing my job.” A position held regarded by the determining factor of the court, and with reckless knowledge of the aggravated kidnapping by cesarean is willing to break her Hippocratic oath, continuing wrong in writing a callous, malevolence, and damnous report; making false determinations of my “mental status” in order to obstruct justice by aiding and abetting in the malicious motives of the courts. To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress-Proverbs 28:23.
Both “doctors, ” Bridget A. Graham and Adam J. Sky professional negligence has been hurtful, harmful, injurious, and damaging, to both me and my baby. Using unethical, illegal practices in coving [sic] St. Marys hospital, Children's Division, and the St. Louis County Courts to conceal the malpractice and unlawful removal of my baby. The thief cometh not but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly-John 10:10.
Ms. Grahams deep rooted mischief confirms with clear and convincing evidence the accuracy of prophecy, prove all things; hold fast that which is good, abstain from all appearance of evil-1 Thessalonians 5:22. From the beginning the “white” race has hated the mere existence of my nation. Is there no shame in people who can persecute, defame, conceal, injure, cut off the love, life, liberty, nourishment, knowledge, happiness, welfare, and human rights of an infant victim and her aggrieved mother deriven [sic] from envy and all for money. For the love of money is the root of ALL evil-1 Timothy 6:10. This written rant about my “perceived” accomplishments, with all its condemnation and verbal attacks on my character nothing states me ever having been harmful to the baby, myself, or others. Ms. Grahams proficiency in her profession to draw a false testimony with apparent inadequate feelings and like throughout history misdiagnosis me with the “black” disease schizophrenia, in which her or her source, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders can't define. There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD (GOD) YHWH. Receiving understanding from the creator of the heavens and the earth nor my 4.0 g.p.a. at Strayer University is nothing sort of average. Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.-Proverbs 23:9.

         Plaintiff alleges Dr. Wolfgram ordered her to be forcibly injected with antipsychotic medications and made false reports. Plaintiff states no factual allegations or direct claims against Dr. Anderson, but states he was given notice of the misdiagnosis, the forced injections, and the psychiatrists' false reports. Plaintiff states no specific claims against Dr. Wilson.

         Plaintiff also alleges that on four separate dates between March 8 and April 5, 2017, while at MPC she “was held down by 8 plus men and forc[ibly] injected with Haloperidol.” She does not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.