Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. State

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division

April 23, 2019

HOSEA L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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).

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

         Under 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.

         When 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 been pleaded).

         Background

         Plaintiff's 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.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         The Second Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff, 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.

         In 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.

         Plaintiff 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).

         Plaintiff 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.