United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern District
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Keith
Taylor Brooks, a prisoner, for leave to commence this action
without prepayment of the filing fee. Having reviewed
plaintiff's financial information, the Court will assess
an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. In addition, the
Court will allow plaintiff the opportunity to submit an
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. A pleading that offers “labels
and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do, ” nor
will a complaint suffice if it tenders bare assertions devoid
of “further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
conducting initial review pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must accept as true the allegations in the complaint,
and must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). However, the tenet that a court must accept the
allegations as true does not apply to legal conclusions,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and affording 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). Even pro se complaints are
required to 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); see also Stone v.
Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (federal
courts are not required to “assume facts that are not
alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would
have formed a stronger complaint”).
brings this action to redress violations of his civil rights,
and names Cape Girardeau County as a defendant in this
action. Plaintiff names eleven additional individuals as
defendants in this action, including: John Jordan (Sheriff);
Unknown Davis (Lieutenant); James Mulcahy (Captain); Ruth Ann
Dickerson (Captain); R. Williams (Correctional Officer); A.
Surface (Correctional Officer); Unknown Stewart (Correctional
Officer); A. Boliva (Correctional Officer); and Unknown Cato
alleges that he was admitted to the Cape Girardeau County
Jail as an inmate on or about April 6, 2018. He claims that
when he was admitted to the Jail he was given a dirty pair of
pants and a dirty shirt by Correctional Officer
Surface. Plaintiff states that he asked for
“clean” clothes, noting that there was a pile of
clothes behind the Officer that seemed to be available for
use at intake. Plaintiff alleges, however, that Correctional
Officer Surface denied him the use of the “clean”
clothes. Plaintiff further alleges that he was not given any
“hygiene” items at intake. Plaintiff does not
indicate exactly what “hygiene” items he was not
provided by the Jail, nor does he indicate what hygiene items
he was expected to buy from the Commissary.
claims that he has had to wear the dirty clothes for
approximately two months. He claims that he got genital
herpes from the dirty clothes, although he has not indicated
that he saw a doctor at the Jail for such a diagnosis. He
merely states that an unnamed nurse he saw didn't
“look at it” and he was told to “put in a
request form if he did have it.”
additionally states that his clothes smelled and other
inmates laughed at him as a result of the dirty clothing he
was given at intake.
states that he believes his legal mail was opened by the Jail
sometime between June 7, 2018 and June 12, 2018. Plaintiff
asserts that “no officers will answer [his] requests
for names” of who allegedly opened the mail.
claims that grievances he allegedly wrote about incidents at
the Jail have been thrown away. Plaintiff, however, does not
indicate what he wrote the grievances about or who allegedly
threw the grievances away.
alleges that he informed Correctional Officer Williams at the
Jail on April 6, 2018 that he was Jewish and required kosher
meals. He asserts that he has been denied kosher meals at the
Jail and as a result he has lost weight. However, he also
states that when he asked why he was being denied kosher
meals he was told that all of the meals at the Jail were
kosher and ok for him to eat.
plaintiff asserts in a conclusory fashion that
“Co's do not keep inmates safe as ...