United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
HOSEA L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
ST. LOUIS CITY, et al., Defendants.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff
Hosea L. Robinson, a prisoner and frequent filer of lawsuits,
has failed to comply with the Court's December 18, 2018,
Order requiring him to file an amended complaint on a
court-provided form. Because the plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, the Court will give him another opportunity
to submit an amended complaint based on the Court's
instructions. Plaintiff must also either pay the filing fee
or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on a
filed this pro se action on October 24, 2018,
alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq. Upon review of plaintiff's initial complaint,
the Court found it defective because, among other things, it
was not drafted on the Court's form, see E.D.
Mo. Local Rule 2.06(A). In addition, plaintiff had neither
paid the filing fee nor filed a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. On December 18, 2018, the Court
ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the
Court-provided form and in compliance with the Court's
instructions, and to either pay the filing fee or submit a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the
Court-provided form. ECF No. 3. On January 7, 2019, plaintiff
filed a motion to appoint counsel, which was subsequently
denied. ECF Nos. 5, 8.
submitted a twenty-page, handwritten filing also on January
7, 2019, containing an “Affidavit and Motion to Proceed
in forma Pauperis on his suit of Mandamus in Support
-Prisoner Cases” and an “ ‘Amended'
Suit for this Injunctive Relief of ‘Mandamus.'
” ECF No. 6. Both documents contain a “Statement
of Claims” section and allege violations of
plaintiff's constitutional rights under the ADA. These
filings were not on court-provided forms. On January 31,
2019, plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for
Review of Opinion, Memorandum and Court Order, ” which
appears to be a motion for reconsideration of the denial of
his motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 9.
the allegations and arguments of plaintiff's filings are
not clear and the “amended” complaint is
defective because it was not drafted on the Court's form,
see E.D. Mo. Local Rule 2.06(A). Plaintiff's
allegations are conclusory and fail to explain how any
particular individual was personally responsible for
violating his rights. In addition, plaintiff has still not
paid the filing fee nor filed a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow
him to file an amended complaint on the Court's form.
Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days from the date of this
Order to file an amended complaint in accordance with the
specific instructions set forth here. All claims in the
action must be included in one, centralized complaint
form. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(1),
addition, plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended
complaint replaces the original complaint and all
previously-filed pleadings, so plaintiff must include each
and every one of the claims he wishes to pursue in the
amended complaint. See, e.g., In re Wireless Telephone
Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928
(8th Cir. 2005). Any claims from the original complaint,
supplements, and/or pleadings that are not included in the
amended complaint will be deemed abandoned and will not be
“Caption” section of the amended complaint,
plaintiff must state the first and last name, to the extent
he knows it, of each defendant he wishes to sue. Plaintiff
should also indicate whether he intends to sue each defendant
in his or her individual capacity, official capacity, or
“Statement of Claim” section, plaintiff should
begin by writing the first defendant's name. In separate,
numbered paragraphs under that name, plaintiff should set
forth the specific factual allegations supporting his claim
or claims against that defendant, as well as the
constitutional right or rights that defendant violated.
Plaintiff should only include claims that arise out of the
same transaction or occurrence, or simply put, claims that
are related to each other. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2).
Alternatively, plaintiff may choose a single defendant and
set forth as many claims as he has against that defendant.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a). The allegations in the complaint may
not be conclusory. Instead, plaintiff must plead facts that
show how each and every defendant he names is personally
involved in or directly responsible for the alleged harm.
Plaintiff's failure to make specific and actionable
allegations against any defendant will result in that
defendant's dismissal from this case.
extent that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the denial of
appointment of counsel, his request is denied. See
ECF No. 9. “A pro se litigant has no statutory or
constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil
case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546
(8th Cir. 1998). When determining whether to appoint counsel
for an indigent litigant, the Court considers relevant
factors, such as the complexity of the case, the ability of
the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence
of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the pro se
litigant to present his or her claim. Id. After
reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment
of counsel is not warranted at this time. Further, the
request for counsel is premature as plaintiff has not even
been granted in forma pauperis status or paid a
filing fee in this case; no defendants have been served; and
no Case Management Order has been entered.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court
shall to mail to plaintiff copies of the Court's Prisoner
Civil Rights Complaint form and Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis - Prisoner Cases form.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within twenty-one
(21) days of the date of this Order, plaintiff shall
file an amended complaint on the Court-provided form and ...