United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff, Obed
Brown, for leave to commence this action without payment of
the required filing fee. After reviewing plaintiff's motion
and supporting financial affidavit, the Court finds that she
does not have sufficient funds to pay the filing fee. The
Court will grant plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Based upon a review of the complaint,
however, the Court finds that the complaint should be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 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, 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 draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
complaint alleges defendants Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Drs.
Ludwig Trillo Alvarez and Shawgi Silver violated her civil
rights by “false imprisonment/involuntary
servitude/human trafficking 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and assault
with substance abuse by forcing me to take sedative-hypnotic
prescription drugs under duress, coercion and
intimidation.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Alternately, she
describes her action as one for damages for “medical
battery/malpractice, assault, intentional torture (tort crime
law), fraud, privacy invasion (HIPPA & GINA) &
obstruction of justice for participating in an organized
police entrapment operation.” Id. at 8.
Plaintiff cites, among others, federal criminal statutes 18
U.S.C. § 1610 (nonexistent); 18 U.S.C. § 351(e)
(assault of a member of Congress, member of executive branch,
Justice of the United States, etc.); 18 U.S.C. § 1581
(peonage); and Missouri state statutes involving fraud and
forgery, and medical records billing. Id. at 8-9.
action arises out of a 96-Hour Detention, Evaluation and
Treatment, and Warrant (Mental Health) signed by Missouri
Probate Judge Michael Mullin. See ECF 1-1. The
96-hour hold was ordered based on an application for hold
filed by Sergeant Sally Panzer of the St. Louis Metropolitan
Police Department. Plaintiff filed as exhibits to her
complaint the application for the 96-hour hold, a portion of
Sgt. Panzer's affidavit, and an affidavit of Dr. Silver.
affidavit, Dr. Silver states:
Per chart, patient has been assigned diagnoses of
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and gender dysphoria
disorder, reportedly untreated. Patient is hyperverbal and
evasive on exam with evidence of delusions of persecution and
a sustained delusion regarding a civil law suit which patient
refuses to elaborate on, believing that it is the cause of
the FBI and police department's persecution. Patient
demonstrates disorganized behavior in the form of living in
her car despite supportive family members. Patient has made
repeated death threats towards specific people via social
media including facebook and twitter. The aforementioned is
consistent with a diagnosis of unspecified schizophrenia
spectrum and other psychotic disorders. Patient is highly
guarded and evasive on examination, refusing to disclose
rationale for making threats towards specific individuals on
social media. Patient denies making such threats, thereby
demonstrating mendacity and other duplicitous statements when
asked about psychiatric history. Therefore, it is uncertain
at this time how much of a threat towards specific
individuals patient currently presents. The aforementioned
support the belief that the respondent presents an
unacceptably high possibility of serious harm to others.
ECF 1-1 at 3.
sense of the allegations in the current case, the Court notes
that plaintiff has an employment discrimination case pending
in this Court against her former employer, Express Scripts.
See Brown v. Express Scripts, No. 4:17-CV-866-HEA
(filed Mar. 9, 2017). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in her
employment discrimination case, which is set for trial May
current case, Plaintiff alleges that, because she refused to
sign an authorization form for her medical records in her
employment discrimination suit, Express Scripts:
committed civil/criminal conspiracy with the police because
there was no medical necessity to invade my privacy under the
4th and 5th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
That's why Sally Panzer did the medical necessity
fraudulently. MD Trillo Alvarez, Ludwig, Shawgi, Silver, MD
and their medical teams ...