United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon review of the third amended
complaint filed by plaintiff Larico Coleman. For the reasons
explained below, this case will be dismissed, without
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).
proceeding herein pro se and in forma
pauperis, is an inmate at the Missouri Eastern
Correctional Center. However, the events giving rise to his
claims occurred when he was incarcerated in the Mississippi
County Detention Center. Plaintiff filed his first complaint
in this case on August 21, 2017. Shortly thereafter, he filed
two supplemental documents, and then filed an amended
complaint. However, he failed to sign the amended complaint,
and the Court returned it to him for his signature. Plaintiff
promptly filed a second amended complaint, which he signed,
and which this Court reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
review, the Court noted that the second amended complaint was
subject to dismissal, and gave plaintiff the opportunity to
submit a third amended complaint. In so doing, the Court
clearly explained the deficiencies of the second amended
complaint, and cautioned plaintiff that his failure to cure
those deficiencies would result in the dismissal of his case.
Plaintiff timely filed a third amended complaint, which the
Court now reviews pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Third Amended Complaint
filed the third amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against ten defendants: Margrett Dykes (a nurse
practitioner), Emily Brown (a nurse), corrections officers
Sholanda Sinks, Nicole Sinks, and Linda Dixon, Sheriff
Brandon Caid, the Mississippi County Detention Center and the
Mississippi County Sheriff's Department, Jail
Administrator Sally Gammons, and Barry Morgan. All of
plaintiff's claims stem from the allegedly inadequate
medical care he received for a foot condition. He alleges as
approximately May 17, 2017, as Brown was passing out
medications, plaintiff showed her his foot which was
“decaying” and “really funky, ” and
told her it was hurting. (Docket No. 15 at 5). Brown gave
plaintiff Ibuprofen, and told him to use anti-fungal cream.
Plaintiff alleges no further interaction with Brown.
two weeks later, plaintiff's foot was swollen, and blood
and pus were present. He saw Dykes for medical care, and she
gave him antibiotics. Plaintiff took the antibiotics for a
week, but they did not help. Plaintiff saw Dykes on three
occasions, but “nothing she did helped.”
Id. Plaintiff complains that Dykes “should
have sent me somewhere that could help me and my
alleges that Gammons saw that plaintiff's foot was
discolored, and that she could smell a foul odor. Plaintiff
writes: “since she is the Jail Administrator, I thought
I would be going to the Hospital but she said that will
[cost] the Jail or County too much money.” Id.
Plaintiff states that Dykes and Gammons chose to not help him
because he was an inmate.
alleges that Caid (the Sheriff) was “over the
jail” and was told about plaintiff's foot condition
by Dixon, Nicole Sinks, and Sholanda Sinks, and could have
solved plaintiff's problem. (Docket No. 15 at 5, 7).
Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated by the
Mississippi County Detention Center. He alleges that Morgan
looked at his foot, and walked away as if he did not care.
Plaintiff also claims that none of his prescriptions were
sent to the Missouri Department of Corrections. Plaintiff