United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MARK K. JACKSON, JR., Plaintiff,
LT. UNKNOWN BROCK, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Mark K.
Jackson, Jr. for leave to commence this civil action without
prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 2). Having
reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted
in support, the Court has determined that plaintiff lacks
sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee, and will
assess an initial partial filing fee of $10.26. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons
discussed below, the Court will dismiss the official capacity
claims against all defendants, as well as the individual
capacity claims against defendants Lt. Unknown
Wade-Livingston, Capt. W. Turner, Lt. Unknown Moss, Derrick
Baker, and Felita Bain. However, the Court will direct the
Clerk of Court to issue process on defendants Lt. Unknown
Brock and Dr. Unknown Fuentes in their individual capacities.
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil
action in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount
of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in
his or her prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court
must assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial
filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (1) the average
monthly deposits in the prisoner's account, or (2) the
average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the
prior six-month period. After payment of the initial partial
filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments
of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to
the prisoner's account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The
agency having custody of the prisoner will forward these
monthly payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the
amount in the prisoner's account exceeds $10.00, until
the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
support of the instant motion, plaintiff submitted a
certified inmate account statement. (Docket No. 4). The
account statement shows an average monthly deposit of $51.31.
The Court will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee
of $10.26, which is 20 percent of plaintiff's average
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 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief,
which is more than a “mere possibility of
misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
679 (2009). “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 upon judicial experience and common sense.
Id. at 679. The court must “accept as true the
facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber,
820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016). See also
Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73
(8th Cir. 2016) (stating that court must accept
factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required
to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A
“liberal construction” means that if the essence
of an allegation is discernible, the district court should
construe the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits
his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787
(8th Cir. 2015). However, 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) (stating that federal courts are not required to
“assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger
complaint”). In addition, 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. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
is currently a pretrial detainee at the St. Louis City
Justice Center (SLCJC) in St. Louis, Missouri. He brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names the
following individuals as defendants: Lt. Unknown Brock; Lt.
Unknown Wade-Livingston; Capt. W. Turner; Lt. Unknown Moss;
Doctor Unknown Fuentes; Derrick Baker; and Felita Bain.
Defendants are sued in both their individual and official
capacities. The complaint concerns plaintiff's alleged
assault by inmate Derrick Baker.
30, 2018, at around 5:30 a.m., plaintiff states that he was
escorted to the dress out area on the second floor of the
SLCJC. (Docket No. 1 at 3). This is the area where inmates
get ready for court. Once there, plaintiff realized that he
had forgotten to bring a motion with him that he needed for
court. The motion had been left in plaintiff's cell on
the fifth floor. Plaintiff states that he asked Lt. Brock if
he could retrieve the motion. (Docket No. 1 at 3-4).
According to plaintiff, Lt. Brock refused, and told him that
his “dumb a-- shouldn't have left it
upstairs.” (Docket No. 1 at 4). Defendant Brock also
told plaintiff to step into Cell A.
states that he told Lt. Brock that “he's not [going
to] talk to [him] like that, ” and that he refused to
step into Cell A because he needed his motion for court.
Thereafter, plaintiff and Lt. Brock exchanged
“derogatory terminology towards one another”
until Lt. Brock left the area.
Lt. Brock was away, plaintiff asked another officer to
retrieve his motion for him. The officer agreed to get the
motion, and told plaintiff to get into Cell A. Plaintiff
complied and stepped into the cell.
Lt. Brock returned, plaintiff states that he asked
“where did the little b---- go?” and stated
“I see your little punk a-- stepped in” to the
cell. At this point, plaintiff and Lt. Brock started arguing
again. During this exchange, plaintiff alleges that Lt. Brock
looked at inmate Derrick Baker and said “Beat his
a--.” Then, Lt. Brock left, whereupon plaintiff claims
that Baker assaulted him and knocked a tooth loose. (Docket
No. 1 at 4, 8). Plaintiff states that he did not know Baker
and that Baker “did this on the order of Lt.
Brock.” (Docket No. 1 at 8). As a result of Baker's
assault, plaintiff's bottom lip was “busted
open” and a tooth was knocked back and pushed out of
place. (Docket No. 1 at 4).
states that he saw Dr. Fuentes at around 8:10 a.m. on the
morning of his alleged assault. (Docket No. 1 at 8). He
states that Dr. Fuentes refused to give him proper medical
attention. Specifically, he claims that she did not let him
see a dentist, despite his tooth being knocked out of place.
Plaintiff states that his tooth is loose to this day, and
that he has still not seen a dentist. He also claims that his
lip and gums continue to hurt. (Docket No. 1 at 10).
around 3:00 p.m. on July 30, 2018, the St. Louis Police
Department was called to the SLCJC. (Docket No. 1 at 7).
Plaintiff states that he was called out of his cell to talk
to police officers about the incident. During this interview,
Lt. Wade-Livingston was present. Plaintiff states that Lt.
Wade-Livingston was also with him in medical while he was
waiting to see the doctor. Indeed, she was on the one who
called the captain and another lieutenant to medical to start
the investigation. However, plaintiff alleges that even
though he gave Lt. Wade-Livingston an informal resolution
request (IRR) to turn in, she never did.
states that Capt. W. Turner came to medical and advised
plaintiff that Turner and Lt. Moss would view the audio and
video surveillance. Plaintiff claims that Lt. Moss “was
also the investigating officer with Capt. Turner that refused
to make a report of his findings.” (Docket No. 1 at 8).
He further states that when he started the IRR and grievance
process, correctional officer Felita Bain refused to allow
him “to follow the chain of command, ” thereby
denying him due process.
asks the Court to order that Lt. Brock be charged with
prisoner abuse and be terminated from his position at the
SLCJC. (Docket No. 1 at 10). He also wants the other
defendants to undergo training on offender abuse. Plaintiff
is seeking damages in the amount of $300, 000 for ...