United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion is granted.
Furthermore, based upon a review of the complaint, the Court
finds that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 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 draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
Eric Raedeke is a resident of Marion County, Missouri, living
at Levering Regional Health Care Center. On June 13, 2007,
the Circuit Court of Marion County, Probate Division,
declared respondent to be totally incapacitated due to
disability as defined in Missouri Revised Statute §
475.010. See In re: Eric A. Raedeke, No.
07MR-PR00050 (Marion County filed Mar. 22, 2007). In the
petition for appointment of guardians, petitioners stated
that Mr. Raedeke suffers from schizoaffective disorder and
his health, safety, and welfare requires supervision. See
In re: Eric A. Raedeke, No. 07MR-PR00338 (Marion County
filed Mar. 22, 2007). For this reason, the Missouri state
court appointed Barbara Raedeke and Lois Schubert as
co-guardians and co-conservators of plaintiff with full
powers as provided by law. Id. Since 2007, plaintiff
has been appointed several different guardians, and his
current guardian is defendant Jill M. Hanley, Public
Administrator, St. Louis City. See Id. (filed Jun.
6, 2017). Plaintiff's guardian files annual status
reports in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, which
are reviewed and approved by the Circuit Court. Id.
(filed Jun. 14, 2018). The most recent annual status report
was filed May 11, 2018, and was approved by the Circuit Court
on June 14, 2018. Id.
February 22, 2018, plaintiff filed with this Court an action
for violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff states that unnamed
people are forcing him to take medications against his will
and forcing him to be in a lockdown facility. He seeks to
remove the guardianship imposed upon him so that he can live
action to restore him to capacity and have his guardianship
lifted is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Under this doctrine, federal courts lack subject matter
jurisdiction over “cases brought by state court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments
rendered before the district court proceedings are commenced
and inviting district court review and rejection of those
judgments.” Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that a federal
district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a claim which
“in effect constitutes a challenge to a state court
decision.” Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546,
548 (8th Cir. 2003). This is so because federal district
courts “exercise original, not appellate,
jurisdiction.” Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 283.
plaintiff seeks review and rejection of the state court
judgment of total incapacity due to disability entered in
Marion County Circuit Court on June 13, 2007. The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits exactly this type
of case. The relief requested by plaintiff would effectively
reverse the state court decision adjudicating plaintiff as
totally incapacitated under Missouri law. See, e.g.,
Peterson v. Arnold, 2009 WL 2972486, at *4 (D. Minn.
Sept. 10, 2009) (holding Rooker-Feldman doctrine
prohibits a plaintiff's § 1983 complaint requesting
review and rejection of state court judgment imposing a
guardianship). For this reason, the Court will dismiss
plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter
extent plaintiff seeks to allege he is being forcibly
medicated and forced into a lockdown facility, these claims
will be dismissed as frivolous because the complaint contains
only conclusory allegations and fails to allege any facts,
which if proved, would afford a basis for granting relief.
“Civil rights pleadings should be construed liberally.
At the very least, however, the complaint must contain facts
which state a claim as a matter of law and must not be
conclusory.” Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44
F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff does not allege that
either defendants Jill Hanley or Patty Berger are forcibly
medicating him or forcing him to be on lockdown. Nor does he
list any specific instances of any such conduct. Because
these claims are conclusory, the Court will dismiss them as
frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(b).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
[ECF No. 2]
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED on initial review pursuant to ...