United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on initial review of pro se
plaintiff Derrick Jerome Harvey's amended complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
November 16, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order
granting plaintiff in forma pauperis status and waiving his
filing fee. Because plaintiff had named only the Florissant
Police Department as a defendant, however, the complaint was
subject to dismissal. See ECF No. 5. Because of the
serious nature of plaintiff's allegations, the Court
allowed plaintiff to amend his complaint. On December 5,
2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
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.
brings his amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging defendants City of Florissant, and Florissant Police
Officers Unknown Leo and Unknown Malik violated his
states that on November 3, 2017, he stopped at a QuickTrip
gas station on his way to work. Inside the store, plaintiff
and a sales associate exchanged heated words. As he left the
store, plaintiff was met outside by a Florissant police
officer. The police officer asked plaintiff if everything was
all right, and plaintiff responded yes. As he continued
walking to his van, however, three or four Florissant police
vehicles approached. These officers asked to see
plaintiff's driver's license. Because plaintiff had
an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation in Hazelwood,
he was taken into custody by Florissant police.
Florissant police station, plaintiff states he was brutally
attacked by Officer Leo and thrown to the ground. Plaintiff
states that while on the ground with his hands behind his
back, Officer Leo placed his knee on plaintiff's neck.
Plaintiff yelled that he could not breathe. Officer Leo hit
plaintiff in the jaw, kicked him in the groin, and kneed him
in the head. Plaintiff's head hit the wall, and he was
seriously injured. Both officers quickly rushed plaintiff to
the hospital where plaintiff told medical personnel that he
feared for his life.
arriving back at the Florissant police department from the
hospital, Hazelwood police attempted to place plaintiff in
custody on his traffic warrant. Plaintiff was still in severe
pain, and Hazelwood police transported him to DePaul Hospital
where plaintiff was diagnosed with a bruised hernia.
seeks monetary damages against defendants arising out of