United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon review of the amended
complaint filed by pro se plaintiff Brian Bullock.
On March 26, 2019, the Court granted plaintiff's motion
to proceed in forma pauperis but ordered that
plaintiff file an amended complaint. For the reasons stated
below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
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
currently being held at the Fulton Reception and Diagnostic
Center (“FRDC”) in Missouri, filed his initial
complaint in the District of Arizona on December 4, 2018, and
it was transferred to this Court on January 29, 2019.
Plaintiff also filed an “Application for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ” which was construed by the
Court as a motion and granted.
brought his initial complaint in this matter under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights against
five defendants: (1) the Franklin County Adult Detention
Center (“FCADC”); (2) Steve Pelton (Sheriff at
FCADC); (3) Stacy Carty (Sargent at FCADC); (4) Darren Vest
(prisoner at FCADC); and (5) Jerry Carty (Sargent at FCADC).
Plaintiff's complaint allegations were all based on an
alleged assault by his cellmate Darren Vest and the lack of
timely medical treatment he received following the assault.
March 26, 2019, the Court reviewed plaintiff complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915 and found that it failed to state claim
upon which relief could be granted. However, because
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court allowed
plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint. But
the Court warned plaintiff that the amended complaint would
again be reviewed under § 1915.
submitted an amended complaint on April 8, 2019.
amended complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, names
only three defendants: (1) Stacy Carty (Sargent/Deputy
Sheriff); (2) Jerry Carty (Sargent/Deputy Sheriff); and (3)
Darren Vest (prisoner at FCADC). Stacy and Jerry Carty
(husband and wife) are both named in their official
capacities only, while Darren Vest is named in his individual
factual allegations of the amended complaint are essentially
the same as the initial complaint. Unbeknownst to plaintiff,
while he was at video court on October 11, his cellmate
Darren Vest assaulted two other inmates. After court, he was
sent back to his cell where Vest was located. Plaintiff fell
asleep and was awoken by Vest poking his eye and hitting him
in the face repeatedly.
claims that defendant Stacy Carty violated FCADC policy by
locking him in a cell with an inmate who had just assaulted
other inmates. According to plaintiff, policy requires that
an inmate be isolated after the first assault. Plaintiff also
claims he was in “protective custody” at the time
of the assault. Plaintiff asserts that he was in a lot of
pain after the assault but that Stacy Carty would not let him
go to the emergency room. Stacy Carty also encouraged him not
to “press charges” because it would be more
paperwork for her. Following Stacy Carty's work shift at
FCADC, her husband Jerry Carty began ...