United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is plaintiffs amended complaint. Having reviewed
plaintiffs amended complaint, as well as plaintiffs ongoing
action in Laramore v. Washington County Jail,
4:17-CV-1618 JAR (E.D.Mo.), the Court will partially dismiss
plaintiffs amended complaint and issue process on the
non-frivolous portions of plaintiff s amended complaint.
Standard on Initial Review
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
complaints are to be liberally construed. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, they still
must allege sufficient facts to support the claims alleged.
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.
2004); see also Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282,
1286 (8th Cir. 1980) (even pro se complaints are required to
allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a
matter of law). Federal courts are not required to
"assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger
complaint." Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15. In
addition, giving 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).
is currently an inmate at the Southeast Correctional Center
("SECC"). He brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Zach Jacobsen (Sheriff, Washington
County Jail), Steven L. Rion (Chief of Custody at the Jail),
Cody Brinley (Washington County Commissioner), Brandon
Thomilison (Deputy Sheriff, Washington County), Parti Allen
(Nurse, Washington County) and Kevin Snow (Deputy Sheriff,
Washington County). He sues all defendants in their
individual and official capacities.
asserts that on April 25, 2017, he was placed in the
Washington County Jail after he was convicted of a criminal
act. Plaintiff states that at the time he was placed in the
Jail, he advised Sheriff Jacobsen and Chief of Custody Rion
that he suffered from chronic COPD, asthma, histoplasmosis,
and a heart condition. Plaintiff claims that he told
defendants that he needed medication for his illnesses,
"but he was not given an answer" by the two men or
medication, even after filing grievances against them.
Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a time period
surrounding his complaint, although this appears to be the
subject of the lawsuit against defendants Christopher Barton,
Shannon Thompson and Kevin Snow in Laramore v. Washington
County Jail, 4:17-CV-1618 JAR (E.D.Mo.).
asserts that Sheriff Jacobsen, Shannon Thompson and Steven Rion
"were all aware of plaintiffs medical conditions but
ordered plaintiff be held in C Tank, no ventilation, two
people with Staph [infection], up to 14 men in a 4 man cell,
no towels, no soap, cleaning supplies every two weeks, no
handicapped access to showers, numerous offenders slipped and
fell in the showers, including plaintiff." Plaintiff
states that he complained about these issues, as well as
"black mold problems, " on various occasions to
Jacobsen, Rion, Thompson, Brinley, Snow and Thomilison, but
to no avail. Plaintiff claims he was told that it was a
broken down state facility that needed to be replaced.
states that he advised Jacobsen, Thompson, Rion and Snow that
he hurt his back on an unnamed date, and they told him to
"deal with it." Plaintiff asserts he did not see a
doctor from the time he was admitted in April of 2017, until
finally in August of 2017. He states that at some point date
unknown, he began complaining to defendant Thomilison about
pain from broken teeth, and he was told that the Sheriffs
Department did not schedule dentist or specialists'
appointments for the inmates.
plaintiff states that he believes that the offenders who had
untreated hepatitis C and Staph infections should have been
separated from the general population by Nurse Patti.
Plaintiff does not state that he was infected with either
disease or that he was placed in a position to become
infected. Thus, plaintiff has not alleged a violation of his
seeks monetary damages.
allegations relating to the conditions of confinement at the
Washington County Jail during the relevant time period
mentioned in his amended complaint are being litigated in
Laramore v. Washington County Jail, 4:17-CV-1618 JAR
(E.D.Mo.). Additionally, plaintiffs claims relating to
defendants failure to provide him with his medications for
his chronic healthcare problems during his first several
months at the Washington County Jail are also being litigated
in that same lawsuit. Thus, the Court will dismiss those
allegations from ...