United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
HOSEA L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon review of the second amended
complaint of pro se plaintiff Hosea L. Robinson, a
prisoner and frequent filer of lawsuits. Plaintiff has failed
to comply with two Orders from this Court requiring him to
file an amended complaint on a court-provided form, and to
pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See ECF
Nos. 5 & 10. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of
what was expected, and cautioned that his case would be
dismissed if he failed to timely comply. For the reasons
explained below, this case will be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
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, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 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 pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915, the Court accepts the well-pled facts as true,
White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984),
and liberally construes the complaint. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); 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) (refusing to supply
additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the
pro se plaintiff that assumed facts that had not
filed his pro se complaint titled “Suit for
the Injunctive Relief of Court Ordered Federal Habeas
Corpus” on December 17, 2018, alleging violations of
his rights under the “ADA” (the Americans with
Disabilities Act) and the “ADAAA” (the Americans
with Disabilities Act Amendments Act). He named as defendants
the “State of Missouri, Department of Corrections; et
al.” 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). On February 8, 2019, the Court
ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the
court-provided form in compliance with the Court's
instructions, and to pay an initial partial filing fee of
$1.00 within twenty-one days. ECF No. 5.
February 25, plaintiff filed an “Amended Response to
Memorandum and Order … issued on February 8, 2019,
” which the Court interpreted as plaintiff's
amended complaint. See ECF No. 9. The amended
complaint was not filed on the court-provided form, and like
the original complaint, it made the same sweeping allegations
of constitutional violations without providing any factual
support or explaining how any particular individual was
personally responsible for violating plaintiff's rights.
On March 20, 2019, the Court gave pro se plaintiff
another chance to file a second amended complaint on a
court-provided form. ECF No. 10. In that Order, the Court
detailed what should be included in the second amended
complaint and how plaintiff should clarify how the claims
raised in this matter differ from claims already considered,
or currently pending, before the Court.
April 1, 2019, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint -
again, not on the court-provided form. As of the date of this
Order, plaintiff has still not paid the $1.00 partial initial
filing fee. See ECF No. 5.
Second Amended Complaint
an inmate at the Southeast Correctional Center
(“SCC”), begins his second amended complaint by
stating that he seeks to withdraw his “Original filings
of Suit for Injunctive Relief” and instead, he seeks a
“Court Order of Mandamus … For the Dismissal of
All Criminal Charges with Prejudice for the Above Names
Defendant[‘s] Violations of the Equal Protection
Clause.” ECF No. 11 at 1. Plaintiff names one defendant
in the caption of his filing: State of Missouri.
general, plaintiff's allegations are hard to decipher and
understand. He includes numerous case citations but fails to
explain how they pertain to his case. He asserts violations
of his rights to equal protection, due process, and a fair
and speedy trial with an unprejudiced public jury. However,
plaintiff cites a Seventh Circuit case where the appellate
court found no Speedy Trial Act or Sixth Amendment speedy
trial protection violation, U.S. Rothrock, 20 F.3d
709, 711-12 (7th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff states that he seeks
relief under the “Federal Laws of Due Process, ”
but he also cites the Missouri Speedy Trial Act, Mo. Rev.
Stat. § 545.780.
cites case law suggesting he is asserting a “class of
one” equal protection claim, but he never alleges how
he has been intentionally treated differently from others who
are similarly situated. See Village of Willowbrook v.
Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). In support of his equal
protection claim, he also cites the Missouri Constitution and
a Supreme Court of Missouri case that affirmed an order of
mandamus compelling a city to approve a land plat
application. See Furlong Cos., Inc. v. City of Kansas
City, 189 S.W.3d 157, 166-73 (Mo. 2006).
also claims he has been wrongly convicted and sentenced,
citing a Supreme Court case holding that involuntary transfer
of a prisoner to a mental hospital implicates a liberty
interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S.
480, 487-91 (1980). According to plaintiff, his rights were
violated in his state court criminal case due to
prosecutorial misconduct; the use of third party testimony to
prejudice the jury; ineffective assistance of counsel; the
state's dropping and ...