United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having
reviewed plaintiff's financial information, the Court
assesses a partial initial filing fee of $40.78, which is
twenty percent of his average monthly deposit. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Although the Court will grant
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, it will
require plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a
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.
an inmate at Washington County Jail, brings this civil rights
action against the following defendants in both their
individual and official capacities: Zach Jacobsen, Sheriff of
Washington County; Amanda Randazzo, Deputy; Steven Rion,
Chief of Custody, Washington County Jail; Shannon Thompson,
Washington County Jail Administrator; Zach Peery, Deputy;
Myra Jordan, Correctional Officer; and Lacey Falter,
defendants Peery, Jordan, and Falter, plaintiff states these
defendants denied him medical treatment “after being
jumped in B-tank” on January 4, 2017. Plaintiff states
that he requested medical treatment, and these defendants
placed him in holding tank 105 where he caught a staph
infection. Plaintiff states he “brought to their
attention the unsanitary living conditions with the black
mold and the jail being overcrowded, ” but defendants
stated there was nothing they could do about it.
defendants Jacobsen, Rion, Thompson, and Randazzo, plaintiff
states he “brought it to their attention about the
black mold and overcrowding numerous times, ” and has
asked to be moved to a different part of the facility.
Plaintiff states these defendants have refused to move him.
Plaintiff states he suffers from headaches; irritation of his
eyes, nose, and throat; body aches; severe allergies; and he
“feels drained every day.” For damages, plaintiff
seeks $500, 000.00.
state an Eighth Amendment claim for failure to provide
medical care, plaintiff must first state that (1) he suffered
from an objectively serious medical need and (2) defendants
knew of, but deliberately disregarded, that need. See
Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 2011).
The Court has no information from which it could infer that
plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious medical need.
He states only that defendants Peery, Jordan, and Falter
“denied me medical treatment after being jumped in
B-tank.” Plaintiff has not alleged any injury, and has
not alleged an objectively serious medical need. He alleges
only that he sought medical treatment. Plaintiff has not
alleged enough facts from which the Court could find he
suffered from an objectively serious medical need, and
therefore his claim does not survive initial review under 28
U.S.C. § 19156(e)(2)(B).
plaintiff's claim of black mold and overcrowding, to
state a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement
under the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must show that the
alleged wrongdoing was objectively harmful enough to
establish a constitutional violation. See Schoelch v.
Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1047 (8th Cir. 2010). The
plaintiff must demonstrate the he suffered “extreme
deprivations, ” meaning that he was denied the
“minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities.” Id.Overcrowding alone does not
describe a constitutional violation. See Patchette v.
Nix, 952 F.2d 158, 163 (8th Cir. 1991). Overcrowding
that leads to increased danger, poor supervision, safety,
medical care and food preparation, however, can violate the
Eighth Amendment. See Cody v. Hillard, 799 F.2d 477,
450 (8th Cir. 1986), on reh'g, 830 F.2d 912 (8th
Cir. 1987) (citing cases).
complaint states only that he was exposed to black mold and
overcrowding. He does not detail the extent of the mold
problem, stating only that black mold exists in the jail.
See, e.g., May v. United States, No.
2:12-CV-19 JTK, 2012 WL 12874272, *2-3 (E.D. Ark. Jul. 2,
2012), aff'd, 501 F. App'x 597 (8th Cir.
2013) (denying summary judgment where plaintiff did not show
in what manner and to what extent he was exposed to mold or
that his medical issues were caused by mold exposure).
Additionally, although he states he suffers from headaches,
irritations, aches, and allergies, he does not allege these
conditions were caused by the mold. Nor does he allege his
staph infection was caused by the mold. Id.
Plaintiff also does not state the extent of the overcrowding,
and has not alleged that it has led to any increased danger,
poor supervision, safety issues, or poor medical care.
See Cody, 799 F.2d at 450. Construed liberally,
plaintiff's allegations regarding unconstitutional
conditions of confinement do not survive initial review under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will provide him an
opportunity to amend his allegations. Plaintiff shall have
twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Memorandum and
Order to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff is warned that
the filing of an amended complaint replaces the original
complaint, and claims that are not realleged are deemed
abandoned. E.g., In re Wireless Tele. Fed. Cost Recovery
Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). As a
result, plaintiff must name each defendant in the caption of
the complaint. Additionally, he must state exactly what each
defendant did, or failed to do, which violated his rights.
Failure to do so risks dismissal of one or ...