United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon review of the amended
complaint filed by plaintiff Marlon Adams. Due to
deficiencies in the original complaint, the Court previously
directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
twenty-one days. Plaintiff has duly filed an amended
complaint. However, many of the same deficiencies in the
original complaint remain in the amended complaint.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will
direct plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.
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.
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).
is a pretrial detainee at St. Charles County Correctional
Center in St. Charles, Missouri. He brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
civil rights. The Court previously granted plaintiff's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No.
5). The Court also directed plaintiff to file an amended
complaint that separately numbered each of his claims, and
that identified the defendant allegedly responsible for each
claim. Id. The Court noted that it would not be
sufficient for plaintiff to list a group of defendants and
say they violated his rights.
January 22, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging a number of unconstitutional conditions of
confinement while he was incarcerated at the St. Louis Medium
Security Institution (“MSI”) from March to
August, 2017. (Docket No. 6). He identified twelve individual
defendants by name: Captain Irene Mitchell, Captain Ervins,
Captain Diggs, Major Russell Brown, Chief Investigator Gary
Hayes, Lieutenant Lindsey, Lieutenant Benjamin, Lieutenant M.
Butler, Officer T. Roberts, Officer I. Griffen, Commissioner
Dale Glass, and Superintendent Jeffrey Carson. All the named
defendants are employees of MSI. Plaintiff also names
“Unknown Captains” and “Unknown
Lieutenants” as defendants, as well as the City of St.
Louis. The defendants are named in both their individual and
amended complaint is comprised of thirty-seven numbered
paragraphs. He begins listing his claims in paragraph 17,
wherein he states that he is a pretrial detainee who had been
housed at MSI. Plaintiff states that when he arrived at MSI,
he observed “bloody panties and underwear stained with
fecal matter, all over the booking area.” (Docket No. 6
at 6). He also states that there was “black
mold/fungus” caked on the walls, and
“mold/fungus” falling from the ceiling. Plaintiff
alleges these conditions made it difficult for him to
paragraph 18, plaintiff says that after booking he was
transferred to D Dorm. He alleges that the conditions of D
Dorm were similar to booking, in that there was “bloody
underwear strewn everywhere” and black mold and fungus
on the walls. (Docket No. 6 at 6). Plaintiff claims he also
noticed rats, roaches, and pests running over the floor.
Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 18 that defendants Mitchell,
Ervins, Diggs, Brown, Hayes, Lindsey, Benjamin, Butler,
Roberts, and Griffen refused to ensure that inmates received
paragraph 19, plaintiff alleges that all of the individual
defendants were responsible for ensuring inmates were
provided three “nutritious and edible meals per day,
” cleaning supplies, clothing, clean drinking water,
appropriate temperatures, exercise, and reasonable safety.
(Docket No. 6 at 6). He alleges that defendant Glass was
responsible for overall administration of MSI, including
making and enforcing facility policies, dealing with
budgetary issues, and ensuring that inmates received proper
meals, clothing, cleaning supplies, adequate shelter, and
safety. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Carson was directly
below defendant Glass in rank. Plaintiff states that
defendant Carson was responsible for handling grievances, as
well as ensuring inmates were provided appropriate meals,
clothing, cleaning supplies, adequate shelter, and safety.
Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Carson delegates these
duties to defendants Mitchell, Ervins, Diggs, Brown, and
“all of the Lieutenants, Captains, and Officers.”
He further alleges that ...