United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KEVIN L. ARCH, Plaintiff,
PREFERRED FAMILY HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon plaintiff Kevin L. Arch's
submission of a civil complaint and a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has considered
the motion, and has determined it should be granted.
Additionally, the Court has reviewed the complaint, and has
determined that it should be dismissed pursuant to Rule
12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require this Court to
dismiss a complaint if it determines at any time that it
lacks jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Moreover, a
complaint filed in forma pauperis must be dismissed
if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 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 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).
Court must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This
means that “if the essence of an allegation is
discernible, ” the court should “construe the
complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to
be considered within the proper legal framework.”
Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.
2004)). However, even pro se complaints 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). Federal courts are not required to assume facts
that are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor
are they required to interpret procedural rules so as to
excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
brings this civil action against Preferred Family Healthcare,
Inc. (“PFH”) and Bridget Hamilton, a counselor
employed by PFH. He avers that he and both defendants are
asserts that this Court has federal question jurisdiction
over this action. In the section of the form complaint
soliciting information about the federal statutes, treaties
or constitutional provisions at issue, plaintiff wrote:
1) Obligation of care for myself, (Mr. Arch)
2) The company and Bridget knew a dangerous condition
existed, that caused harm to Arch 3) The facility and Bridget
Hamilton actions caused injuries to Arch.
(Docket No. 1 at 4). Additionally, on the Civil Cover Sheet
plaintiff filed with his complaint, he checked a box
indicating he was invoking this Court's federal question
jurisdiction, and he wrote that he was filing this case under
18 U.S.C. § 2255. Liberally construed, plaintiff can
also be understood to claim this Court has jurisdiction on
the basis of diversity of citizenship, as he states he
intends to bring claims of negligence and malpractice, claims
that are premised upon state law.
setting forth his claims for relief, plaintiff writes:
I was drunk and kicked out of my apartment by Bridget
Hamilton. The incident happened on 01-29-17 at approx. 11:20
pm at 2609 Rauschenbach Ave. St. Louis, Mo. I was passed out
drunk, forced from the home, got in my car and drove away. I
was arrested, booked for DWI, car towed and still pending
court costs. Bridget Hamilton promoted the eviction and
backed it up, with two men. PFH allowed (BH) Bridget to
continue to work for PFH even though she was negligent in
handling clients with problems (Hampton) ODed on drugs. Her
actions as a professional addiction counselor did not conform
to the minimal level of professionalism. My well being was
put in jeopardy, by BH, I had drunk to passing. I was not in
shape mentally and physically to perform normal actions.
(Docket No. 1 at 6). As relief, plaintiff seeks $500, 000
because he was “jailed, fined, had car towed (at my
expense), lost time in court dates and damage to my driving
record, ” and he writes: “with the jailing, loss
of property, life put in jeopardy, court cost, attorney fees,
driving privilege ...