United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
VANESSA O. THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
RICHARD K. DAVIS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Vanessa O. Thompson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this civil action. The Court has reviewed the financial
information submitted in support, and will grant the motion.
In addition, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Standard on Initial Review
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 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. This
Court is required to liberally construe a pro se complaint,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and must
accept plaintiff's factual allegations as true unless
they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). The Court is 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). Giving a pro se complaint the
benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that the
rules of ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted to
excuse mistakes by those who proceed pro se. McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
brings this unidentified action against defendants Richard K.
Davis (Chairman and CEO of U.S. Bank N.A.); Tyler D. Beckerle
(Attorney); and Mary Elizabeth Ott (St. Louis County Circuit
Court Judge). The entirety of plaintiff's claim is as
Plaintiff was victim of breach or violation of a dead pledge,
resulting illegal foreclosure that resulted in stolen estate,
personal belongings and homelessness of plaintiff and
children. [T]he defendants [were] involved in breach linear
unconscionable contract, that resulted in a DEAD PLEDGE that
took place in the [S]tate of Missouri on November 17, 2009.
seeks damages for emotional anguish, punitive damages, and
the return of her estate.
complaint is entirely unclear, but it appears that
plaintiff's home was subject to foreclosure. Assuming
this was the case, and she had a contract with a mortgage
lender that she considers breached on November 17, 2009, the
Court finds plaintiff's action barred by the five-year
statute of limitations for contract claims. Missouri Revised
Statute § 516.120 states that “All actions upon
contract, obligations or liabilities, express or implied,
except those mentioned in section 516.110, and except upon
judgments or decrees of a court of record, and except where a
different times herein limited” must be brought within
five years. Plaintiff claims a breach of contract on November
17, 2009. The five-year statute of limitations on this claim
would have run on November 17, 2014. Plaintiff did not file
this action until February 15, 2018, and thus it is time
plaintiff has not made any factual allegations against
defendants Davis, Beckerle, or Ott. Civil plaintiffs are
required to set forth their claims in a simple, concise, and
direct manner, and they are required to set forth the facts
supporting such claims as to each named defendant. This
Court's obligation to liberally construe plaintiffs
complaint does not include the obligation to create facts or
construct claims that have not been alleged. See
Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15. Having liberally construed
the complaint and attached documents, the Court concludes
that it is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii). See also Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (An action is
factually frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly
baseless”; allegations are clearly baseless if they are
“fanciful, ” “delusional, ” or
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to ...