United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Judge
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Rickie
Monroe Holifield for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this civil action. Upon consideration of the motion, the
Court concludes that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing
fee. The motion will therefore be granted. Additionally, the
Court will dismiss the complaint, 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,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable
basis in either law or fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not
plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). 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 assume the
veracity of well-pleaded facts, but need not accept as true
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements."
Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
Court must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This
means that "if the essence of an allegation is
discernible, " the court should "construe the
complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to
be considered within the proper legal framework."
Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.
2004)). However, even pro se complaints must 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). Federal courts are not required to assume facts that
are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor are
they required to interpret procedural rules so as to excuse
mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil
v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113(1993).
filed the instant complaint using the Court's
"Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint Under 42 U.S.C. §
1983" form. It appears that plaintiff was a pretrial
detainee at the time of the events giving rise to plaintiffs
claims, but he is not presently incarcerated. He states he is
awaiting trial. Plaintiff names the Mississippi County
Sheriffs Office "Jail Administrator" as defendant,
and avers the defendant is employed by the Mississippi County
Sheriffs Office. He does not indicate the capacity in which
he sues the defendant, even though the complaint form clearly
solicited that information.
allegations are best understood if quoted in full. They are
My constitutional rights were violated and left to hold my
stool until release. I was booked and searched given a matt
bar of soap and flip flops. No. toilet paper utensils for
eating. Cup to drink out of and when asked for the
[illegible] was rushed by Co. Faith ?? and Koss ?? and
threatened by taser if I persisted. Humiliated and degraded
by staff on numerous occasions. Denied medical treatment on 2
occasions and proper sanitary working toilets w/ old stool
[illegible] by trash bag. On 24 hour hold that lasted 2 days.
in the complaint, plaintiff writes:
Denied medical treatment by jail nurse. 2 times and multiple
times by correction officers, although my blood pressure was
unacceptable still denied med treatment by MD.
seeks $2 million in damages due to "negligence and
inhumane treatment by correctional officers, Jail