United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
DEMETRIUS L. MIMS, Plaintiff,
BARNES HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Demetrius Mims for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in this civil action. Upon consideration of the
financial information provided with the application, the
Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any
portion of the filing fee. The motion will therefore be
granted. In addition, the Court will dismiss the 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 679.
se 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).
filed the instant complaint against Barnes Hospital, the St.
Louis County Jail, the University City Police Department, and
Michelle J. Place. He invokes this Court's federal
question jurisdiction on the basis of "deprivation of
rights." (Docket No. 1 at 4). He avers that he and all
of the named defendants are Missouri residents.
alleges that the events giving rise to his claims occurred on
August 20, 1997. On that date, plaintiff was questioned by
the University City Police Department, and when he did not
speak, they charged him with first-degree robbery and armed
criminal action. He was held in the St. Louis County Jail and
classified as armed and dangerous even though he was not.
After a preliminary hearing, the University City Police
Department again tried to force plaintiff to talk. Plaintiff
next alleges that Michelle Place did an incorrect procedure
on his jaw, and on January 8, 2018, he was diagnosed with
"chronic jaw pain and other chronic pain."
Id. at 7. Plaintiff does not explain how his jaw was
seeks monetary relief for pain and suffering. He also asks
this Court to remove three felony convictions from his
record, and to also remove a friend's felony conviction.
noted above, plaintiff invokes this Court's federal
question jurisdiction to vindicate his rights. This case is
therefore properly characterized as one brought pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 claims are analogous to
personal injury claims, and are subject to Missouri's
five-year statute of limitations. Sulik v. Taney County,
Mo., 393 F.3d 765, 766-67 (8th Cir. 2005).
"Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative
defense, a district court may properly dismiss an in
forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § l9l5
when it is apparent the statute of limitations has run."
Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992)
claims his rights were violated on August 20, 1997, more than
twenty years ago. The Court will therefore dismiss plaintiffs
complaint as frivolous based on the expiration of the statute
of limitations. See id; see also 28 U.S.C. §
the complaint had been timely filed, it would be subject to
dismissal. Neither the St. Louis County Jail nor the
University City Police Department can be sued under §
1983. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark,
97'4 F.2d 81, 82 (1992) (departments or
subdivisions of local government are not "juridical,
" or suable, entities). In addition, plaintiff alleges
no facts from which the Court could reasonably infer that
defendants Barnes Hospital and/or Michelle Place were state
actors. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S.
922, 937 (1982) (to state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff
must prove that he was deprived of constitutional rights as a
result of state action by a state actor); see also
Martin, 623 F.2d at 1286 (evenpro se complaints
are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim
for relief as a matter of law).
diversity jurisdiction would not exist because plaintiff and
all of the defendants reside in ...