United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division
JOHN A. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff,
DAMIAN AUSTIN, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD WEBBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the filing of an amended
complaint by plaintiff John A. Crawford. For the reasons
explained below, the Court will dismiss this case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to
dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law
or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
328 (1989). An action is malicious if it is undertaken for
the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the
purpose of vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v.
Rhodes, 656 F.Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987),
aff'd 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). An action
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it
does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step
inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in
the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
These include “legal conclusions” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements.” Id. at 678. Second, the Court
must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim
for relief. Id. at 679. This is a
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the
“mere possibility of misconduct.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 679. The Court must review the factual
allegations in the complaint “to determine if they
plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.”
Id. at 681. When faced with alternative explanations
for the alleged misconduct, the Court may exercise its
judgment in determining whether plaintiff's proffered
conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more likely
that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 680-82.
se complaints are to be liberally construed, Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), but they still must
allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a
matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282,
1286 (8th Cir. 1980). The Court must weigh all factual
allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts
alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). 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 v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912,
914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).
initiated this civil action by filing a complaint in this
Court on July 17, 2017. He sought and was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. In the complaint,
plaintiff named two individuals as defendants and claimed
various forms of wrongdoing, including being placed in
disciplinary segregation, being forced to wait too long to
use the bathroom, being retaliated against, being issued a
conduct violation, and not receiving a response to
grievances. Plaintiff set forth his claims in conclusory
fashion instead of alleging facts showing what each defendant
did to violate his federally-protected rights, and he
included so much extraneous information that it was difficult
to discern his claims. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion
indicating his intention to file an amended complaint. In
light of plaintiff's motion and the fact that the
original complaint was subject to dismissal, the Court
entered an order directing him to file an amended complaint.
Therein, the Court set forth clear instructions about how
plaintiff should prepare the amended complaint. Among other
things, the Court clearly instructed plaintiff that he must
comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, that if he named more than one defendant he should
include only claims that were related, and that he must
allege facts showing what each defendant did to violate his
rights. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint,
which the Court now reviews pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
filed the amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against thirty-five defendants, ten of whom are unknown.
Plaintiff enumerates six claims for relief, stemming from
unrelated events beginning in 2014 and continuing as
plaintiff was transferred to various institutions within the
Missouri Department of Corrections. As with the original
complaint, the amended complaint contains a great deal of
extraneous information and legally conclusory statements. The
Court will address each of plaintiff's enumerated claims.
One is titled “deliberate indifference to medical needs
in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; denial
of services to a qualified person with a disability under 42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Title II of the ADA; Denial of
substantive right to healthcare from the Department of
Veterans' Affairs VAMC, Columbia, Mo, violating 38 U.S.C.
§ 1710.” (Docket No. 15 at 9). In support,
plaintiff alleges “the doctors of Corizon Healthcare
Inc.” are falsifying records to justify denial of
prescribed treatment, and “MDOC, ADA
coordinators” are denying him proper bedding.
Id. Plaintiff lists the names of doctors from
Missouri Department of Corrections' facilities in which
he was housed, and states they denied proper care and access
to a specialist. He refers to “unknown ADA
coordinators” at three different institutions, and
states that they failed to perform fiduciary duties.
Id. at 11-12. He claims “the ...