United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern District
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the filing of plaintiff's
amended complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in Eastern Reception,
Diagnostic and Correctional Center (“ERDCC”),
brings this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil
rights. After reviewing plaintiff's complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court will dismiss plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 to
redress violations of his civil rights, and names ERDCC,
Warden Terry Russell, Assistant Warden Stan Payne, the
Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) as
defendants in the caption of his complaint.
amended complaint is once again handwritten, and
plaintiff's handwriting is difficult to decipher.
Plaintiff has not mentioned any allegations relating to his
time at ERDCC, even though all of the named defendants relate
to that prison.
it appears that plaintiff is alleging his rights were
violated in some unnamed way when he was served on a warrant
for a probation violation by Deputy Sheriff James Pope in
Saint Francis County in May of 2017. Plaintiff also appears
to be arguing against the underlying aggravated stalking
charge from June of 2013, for which he first received a
five-year Suspended Execution of Sentence (“SES”)
on September 5, 2014.
only is Deputy Sheriff James Pope not listed as a defendant
in this action, but plaintiff has also not indicated exactly
how he believes Pope purportedly violated his rights by
serving him with a warrant for his arrest on a probation
violation. The Court cannot say, as a result, that
plaintiff has made any actionable claims against Deputy
the State officials, naming a government official in his or
her official capacity is the equivalent of naming the
government entity that employs the official, in this case the
State of Missouri. Willv.MichiganDep=tofStatePolice,
491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). “[N]either a State nor its
officials (or agencies) acting in their official capacity are
‘persons' under § 1983.” Id. As
a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted against MDOC, ERDCC, Terry Russell, and
Stan Payne. As a result, the Court must dismiss this action,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no process shall
issue on the amended complaint as plaintiff's action is
frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.§
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED pursuant to 28 ...