United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's
amended complaint. Based upon a review of the amended
complaint, the Court finds that the amended complaint should
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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
“does not accept as true any legal conclusion couched
as a factual allegation”).
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 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) (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).
Ronald Lamont Sutton, was an inmate at Algoa Correctional
Center (“Algoa) in Jefferson City, Missouri when he
filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 on February 11, 2019. In a handwritten complaint,
totaling seventy-three pages (with exhibits), against five
different defendants, relating to three separate Correctional
Institutions (Algoa, ERDCC and Potosi), plaintiff sued for
denial of medical care relating to his lower back pain.
plaintiff had several pleading deficiencies and his complaint
attempted to improperly join a multitude of claims against
different defendants that were related to events arising out
of different occurrences or transactions, the Court ordered
plaintiff, on February 13, 2019, to amend his pleading to
cure the deficiencies in the complaint. Plaintiff filed his
amended pleading on February 27, 2019.
who is now incarcerated at Jefferson City Correctional Center
(“JCCC”) brings his amended complaint against
three new defendants: Melissa Daniels (Director of Nursing,
Corizon), Todd Bredeman (ERDCC, MDOC) and Levi Lawson (Acting
Wardon, ERDCC, MDOC). He states that he is bringing claims
against defendants in their individual capacities only.
states that defendant Daniels “makes their image look
good” at ERDCC by messing paperwork up. Plaintiff
states that he believes defendant Daniels lied about the
results of plaintiff's X-ray, lied about the dates of the
medical department's response to plaintiff's IRR, and
“denied access to plaintiff's medical needs.”
claims defendant Todd Bredeman also “lied on
paperwork” about “plaintiff's medical
treatment” and “dates” saying he had an
X-ray and that plaintiff was “negative for
fracture.” Plaintiff also believes that defendant
Bredeman denied plaintiff “access to serious medical
states in a conclusory manner that defendant Lawson was aware
of plaintiff's “serious medical needs” and
denied plaintiff medical care. Plaintiff also states that he
believes Lawson punished him for complaining about not
getting medical needs by placing him in the hole. However,
plaintiff has not made any factual allegations relative to
also states generally that Lawson had a policy of failing to
provide plaintiff with medical care, and that he failed to
train or supervise ...