United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Clint
Phillips, III, for leave to commence this action without
prepayment of the filing fee. The Court will grant plaintiffs
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, after reviewing
plaintiff's complaint, the Court will dismiss the
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. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, 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, inter alia, draw
upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However,
this does not mean that pro se complaints may be
merely conclusory. 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"). In addition,
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).
seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Unknown St. Louis City Police Officers, St. Louis City
Division of Corrections, Corizon Healthcare, City of St.
Louis, Dr. Sadige, and Dr. Unknown Mallard. Plaintiff sues
defendants in both their official and individual capacities.
asserts that on May 8, 2016, he was "accosted" by
unnamed St. Louis City Police Officers, apparently after his
family members called to report he was schizophrenic and had
not been taking his medications. Plaintiff claims the
officers conducted a search and seizure of him without
probable cause and without reasonable suspicion. He states
that while officers were attempting to handcuff him and
civilly commit him, he "gently push[ed] the handcuffs
off . . . and back[ed] up with my hands up in a sign of
non-aggression." He states he attempted to flee, but was
struck by a baton and was shot by a taser. He was transported
to the police station, where he alleges the police officers
falsified documents. Plaintiff alleges he was then
transported to the St. Louis City Justice Center where he was
held with "unreasonable delay" before being taken
to appear before a judge.
these allegations of plaintiff s complaint are rather clear,
the next ten pages of the complaint are not. Plaintiff lists
various Missouri statutes, state and federal cases, legal
definitions, federal criminal rules of procedure, amendments
to the United States Constitution, and Missouri rules of
practice. Each listing is accompanied by a single-spaced
definition or summary of the case, rule, amendment, etc.
Plaintiff makes little effort to apply these disjointed
statements to his case. He makes no allegations against
defendants St. Louis City Division of Corrections, the City
of St. Louis, Dr. Unknown Sadige, or Dr. Unknown Mallard. As
to defendant Corizon Healthcare, plaintiff states in a
conclusory fashion that he was in need of medical attention
at the St. Louis City Justice Center, but unknown individuals
demonstrated a reckless disregard for his safety and denied
seeks compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $85
Court has reviewed Missouri Case.Net, the State of
Missouri's online docketing system. Indeed, plaintiff was
arrested on the afternoon of May 8, 2016, at the site of a
domestic dispute with plaintiffs wife. Plaintiff was
charged with misdemeanor assault and two counts of resisting
arrest. See State v. Phillips, Case No. 1622-CR02100
(22nd Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis Court).
warrant was served on plaintiff on April 13, 2017, and bond
was set at $2, 500 by Judge Stovall-Reid. Plaintiff chose not
to post bond and therefore remained in custody until his
sentencing, which occurred on June 19, 2017. On that date, he
was sentenced to six months Suspended Imposition of Sentence
("SIS"), as well as six months Suspended Execution
of Sentence ("SES"). He was then provided with
unsupervised probation at that time.
the allegations in the complaint are duplicative of the
allegations plaintiff brought in the case Phillips v.
Unknown St. Louis City Police Officers, No. 4:17-CV-1589
JMB (E.D. Mo. filed May 30, 2017), which the Court dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). As a result, these
allegations will be dismissed as duplicative. E.g.,
Cooper v. Delo,997 F.2d ...