United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s amended
complaint. Based upon this review, the Court finds that the
amended complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
November 16, 2017, the Court issued an order allowing
plaintiff to amend his complaint to add as defendants the
following officers from the St. Louis County Police
Department: Unknown Faasen, Unknown Reynolds, Unknown
Merritt, Unknown Berry, and Unknown Avery. Plaintiff did not
state in his motion to amend what claims he wished to pursue
against any of the proposed defendants. The Court cautioned
plaintiff that the signed amended complaint must comply with
Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Specifically, the Court stated that in the "Statement of
Claim" section of the Court-provided form for a prisoner
civil rights action, plaintiff "must include each and
every claim he wishes to bring against each and every
defendant in this action." See ECF No. 10 at 3.
In compliance with Rule 8, the Court instructed plaintiff
that the complaint must "contain a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." Id.
November 30, 2017, plaintiff filed his amended complaint. On
December 6, 2017 he filed a supplement to his amended
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.
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.
amended complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and various state laws. He states that on January 11,
2016, he was "taken against his will and handcuffed
[and] [roughed] up by St. Louis County Police officers and
detectives" without a warrant. He states he asked for an
attorney, but was denied this constitutional right.
as defendants are St. Louis County Police Officers William
Belcher, Detective Unknown Fasson, Jason Bockoff, and
Detective Unknown McGee. Although not listed in the caption
of the complaint, in his statement of claim, plaintiff states
he also wants to name as defendants: St. Louis County Police
Officers Unknown Reynolds, Unknown Merritt, Unknown Berry,
and Unknown Avery; Prosecuting Attorney Michael K. Hayes; the
St. Louis County Courts; the Missouri Department of
Corrections; Kristen Michelle Trogler; Jefferson County
Social Services Agent Elizabeth Porrin Hathaway; and the St.
Louis County Public Defender's Office. For damages,
plaintiff seeks $30 million, and seeks to have the police
officers removed from their jobs.
amended complaint will be dismissed on initial review under
§ 1915(e)(2) because the complaint contains only
conclusory allegations and fails to allege any facts, which
if proved, would afford a basis for the granting of relief.
"Civil rights pleadings should be construed liberally.
At the very least, however, the complaint must contain facts
which state a claim as a matter of law and must not be
conclusory." Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44
F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 1995).
upon a review of Missouri's state court docketing system
on Missouri Case.net, plaintiff has listed as defendants what
appears to be most individuals involved in his state court
criminal action, State v. Robert Maurer, No.
16SL-CR00167-01 (St. Louis County Circuit Court). On August
31, 2017, a jury in St. Louis County Circuit Court found
plaintiff guilty of statutory sodomy first degree and failure
to register as a sex offender. Id. On October 12,
2017, plaintiff was sentenced to life without the possibility
of parole. Plaintiffs claim that he was "taken against
his will and handcuffed and [roughed] up" by unnamed