United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motions of George Proby,
Jr. (registration no. 1237464), an inmate at Northeast
Correctional Center ("NECC"), for leave to commence
this action without payment of the required filing
For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that plaintiff
does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee
and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.S3.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Furthermore, after
reviewing the complaint, the Court will order plaintiff to
submit a second amended complaint on a court-provided form in
compliance with the instructions set forth below. Plaintiffs
failure to do so will result in a dismissal of this action,
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil
action in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount
of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in
his or her prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court
must assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial
filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (1) the average
monthly deposits in the prisoner's account, or (2) the
average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the
prior six-month period. After payment of the initial partial
filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments
of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to
the prisoner's account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The
agency having custody of the prisoner will forward these
monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount
in the prisoner's account exceeds $10, until the filing
fee is fully paid. Id.
has submitted an affidavit and a certified copy of his prison
account statement for the six-month period immediately
preceding the submission of his complaint. A review of
plaintiffs account indicates an average monthly deposit of
$9.18. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial
filing fee of $1.83.
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 for relief under § 1983, 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, inter alia, draw
upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at
complaints are to be liberally construed. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, they still
must allege sufficient facts to support the claims alleged.
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.
2004); see also Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282,
1286 (8th Cir. 1980) (even pro se complaints are required to
allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a
matter of law). Federal courts are not required to
"assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger
complaint." Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15. In
addition, giving 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.
U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
filed this action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri (W.D.M.O.) on December 6, 2018.
At the time he filed his sixty-two-page (62) complaint, he
was incarcerated in the Southeast Correctional Center
("SECC") in Charleston, Missouri. The W.D.M.O.
transferred the action to this Court on December 11, 2018,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Along with the complaint,
the Court simultaneously transferred plaintiffs motions for
temporary restraining order and for preliminary injunction,
also filed on December 6, 2018, in which plaintiff sought
"timely and proper medical treatment."
filed his amended complaint on May 20, 2019, in this Court.
"It is well-established that an amended complaint
supersedes an original complaint and renders the original
complaint without legal effect." In re Wireless
Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396
F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005).
is currently incarcerated at Northeast Correctional Center
("NECC"). The amended pleading is made up
eighty-six-pages (86) pages, including exhibits. It names
thirty-three (33) individuals and entities as defendants in
this action, and plaintiff has included claims relating to
three separate prisons - Moberly Correctional Center
("MCC"), Southeast Correctional Center
("SECC"), and Jefferson City Correctional Center
("JECC"). Plaintiff has also included claims
relating to supervisors at Corizon Health Services and the
individuals who run the Missouri Department of Corrections,
who are located in Jefferson City, Missouri. Moreover, he has
brought more than twelve (12) separate claims against the
thirty-three (33) defendants. As set forth in detail below,
such pleading practice is not allowed pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 10, 18 and 20, and plaintiff will
be required to amend his complaint.
brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants
are individuals employed by Jefferson City Correctional
Center ("JCCC"), the Moberly Correctional Center
("MCC"), the Southeast Correctional Center
("SECC"), Corizon Medical Services ("Corizon),
and the Missouri Department of Corrections
as defendants are: Corizon Medical Services; T. Bredeman
(MDOC, Director of Operations); J. Cofield (MDOC, Director of
Operations of Constituent Services); Dean Minor (Warden,
MCC); Ruanne Stamps (Doctor, MCC); Bonnie Boley (Health
Services Admin., MCC); Laurel Davison (Nurse Practitioner,
MCC); Audrey Ford (Nurse, MCC); Kayla Nivert (Nurse, MCC);
Amanda Unknown (Nurse, MCC); Unknown Stoner (Nurse, MCC);
Christina Unknown (Nurse, MCC); Courtney Unknown (Nurse,
MCC); Unknown Lawson (Square Cook, MCC); Unknown Jochem
(Square Cook, MCC); Unknown Bell (Square Cook, MCC); Molly
Leija (Health Services Admin., SECC); Martin Unknown (Case
Worker, MCC); Aaron LeGrand (Case Worker, MCC); Blake Moutray
(Correctional Officer, MCC); Ralph Vanlandringham
(Correctional Officer, MCC); Phillip Tippen (Doctor, SECC);
Rebecca Graham (Nurse Practitioner, SECC); Larry Graham
(Charge Nurse, SECC); Christy Williams (Nurse, SECC); Megan
Unknown (Nurse, SECC); Jackie Unknown (Nurse, SECC); Amanda
Unknown (Nurse, SECC); Unknown Lynch (Correctional Officer,
SECC); Unknown Harriston (Correctional Officer, SECC); Sydney
Serr (Nurse Practitioner, JECC); and Ryan Crews (Dep. Div.
Dir. Of Adult Inst., MDOC). Plaintiff brings this action
against defendants in their individual and official
asserts a plethora of medical claims against defendants
including assertions regarding alleged injuries from: (1)
falling down the stairs; (2) head injuries/concussion; (3)
severe headaches; (4) spotted vision; (5) double vision; (6)
neck injuries; (7) swollen/sprain-like muscle cramps in neck
and unable to rotate neck without clicking sound; (8) back
injuries in lumbar region/sciatic nerve problems; (9) side
effects from Effexor and Cymbalta; (10) side effects from
experimental blood pressure medications; (11) injuries
from refusing to give proper blood pressure medication
without severe side effects; and (12) denial of prescribed
seeks specific injunctive relief as well as compensatory and
punitive damages in this action. Some of plaintiff s requests
for injunctive relief are specific to SECC, and he no longer
resides at this prison. When a prisoner has been transferred
to a new correctional facility, his claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief are properly ...