United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on review of a document filed
by pro se plaintiff Paul Alan Hileman that has been construed
as a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
complaint is deficient because it has not been filed on a
Court form. Moreover, plaintiff has not paid the filing fee
or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. As such,
plaintiff will be directed to file an amended complaint
pursuant to the instructions set forth below. He will also be
ordered to either pay the full filing fee or submit a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a copy of his inmate
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 plaintiffs 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 (8thCir.
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 a pro se litigant currently incarcerated at the Lee County
Jail in Fort Madison, Iowa. (Docket No. 1 at 1). He has filed
a handwritten document that he titles "an emergency
lawsuit." The complaint is not on a Court form and
plaintiff has neither filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis nor paid the filing fee. He names Joseph Alvarez and
Victoria Pederson as defendants. He does not state the
capacity in which they are sued.
complaint is disorganized and difficult to follow. He begins
by stating that in the early 1980s, when he was a juvenile,
he stole an automobile from Youngs Auto Mart in Fort Madison,
Iowa. (Docket No. 1 at 2). He further states that he
"beat up" defendant Alvarez "in a wrestling
match type fight" after Alvarez threatened him on the
school bus. Plaintiff goes on to state that the "Youngs
made things personal with plaintiff after he stole the car.
plaintiff states that defendant Victoria Pederson is a
psychiatrist at the Iowa State Penitentiary. He alleges that
she made things "personal (illegally)" with him,
due to the fight plaintiff had with defendant Alvarez.
remainder of plaintiffs "Statement of Facts"
appears to concern an unidentified "suspect" and a
"federal investigation." Plaintiff states that at
5:30 p.m. on April Fool's Day in 2017, he was
"successfully questioned, then released, by federal
authorities." He asserts this occurred outside of a
Walmart in Waterford, Connecticut, in front of everyone.
Plaintiff then states that he "found himself in hot
pursuit of two white sheriffs deputy vehicles." These
two sheriffs department vehicles were to "deliver the
suspect to federal authorities." (Docket No. 1 at 2-3).
The end result of this "hot pursuit" was a
"string of false arrests and imprisonments, as well as
other things along the way." (Docket No. 1 at 3).
does not seek any specific relief from the Court.
has filed a document with the Court that has been construed
as a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
complaint is deficient because it does not appear on a Court
form. Moreover, plaintiff has not shown that defendants
violated his constitutional rights while acting under color
of state law. Indeed, it is difficult to determine exactly
what plaintiff is alleging the defendants did or did not do
to harm him. The Court is also unsure as to where these
events took place for venue purposes, as he mentions both
Iowa and Connecticut. Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
he will be allowed to amend his complaint according to the
instructions set forth below.
should type or print his complaint on the Court's civil
rights form, which will be provided to him. See E.D.
Mo. L.R. 45 - 2.06(A) ("All actions brought by pro se
plaintiffs or petitioners should be filed on Court-provided
forms"). The Court notes that plaintiffs handwriting is
at times nearly illegible. If he is unable to type the