United States District Court, E.D. Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is plaintiff Brandon Barnett's amended
complaint. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Southeast
Correctional Center (“SECC”). After reviewing the
amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the
Court will require plaintiff to file an amended complaint on
a court-provided form. Plaintiff's failure to do so in
accordance with this Court's instructions will result in
a dismissal of this action, without prejudice.
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 during his incarceration at
January 5, 2018, the Court reviewed plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, and found that plaintiff's complaint failed
to comply with Federal Rules of Procedure 8 and 10. It was
long and rambling and listed over eighty (80) persons as
defendants in this action. Moreover, plaintiff's
complaint was extremely difficult to read, and plaintiff had
not listed what claims he was bringing against each
individual defendant. The Court also noted that plaintiff
needed to amend his complaint to only include claims that
arose out of the same transaction or occurrence, or, to put
it another way, claims that are related to one another.
See Fed.R.Civ.P.20(a)(2). Alternatively, plaintiff
was told that he could choose one single defendant and set
forth as many claims as he wished against that particular
January 18, 2018, plaintiff filed his amended complaint.
Between the amended complaint and its supporting
documentation, the document consisted of forty-one (41)
pages. Additionally, plaintiff filed a supplemental amended
complaint consisting of four (4) additional pages.
Plaintiff's amended complaint listed forty-two (42)
persons as defendants in this action. At the time of filing
his amended complaint, plaintiff additionally filed a motion
for extension for time to file “additional
support” for his amended complaint. He further
requested two more motions for appointment of counsel and a
second motion to proceed in forma pauperis. His new motion to
proceed in forma pauperis will be denied as moot.
Court has reviewed plaintiff's amended complaint and once
again finds that it does not comply with Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 8, 10, 18, 19 and 20.
gist of plaintiff's claims still appear to be claims of
deliberate indifference to his medical needs, but they are
buried in a long and rambling forty-six (46) page amended
pleading. And plaintiff's handwriting is extremely
challenging to read, making his assertions against the
forty-two (42) named defendants even more problematic to
Court recognizes that plaintiff has attempted to comply with
Rules 8 and 10 by writing each defendant's name and then
making claims against them. However, Rule 8(a) requires
“a short and plain statement, ” and Rule 8(e)
requires that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be
simple, concise, and direct.” Plaintiff's long
complaint is neither simple or concise or direct. And
plaintiff needs to have paragraphs in his complaint to be in
compliance with Rule 10, not just sentences that run into one
another in a cramped space that make it difficult to discern
one claim from another.
plaintiff's biggest issue is his failure to comply with