United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the filing of the amended
complaint. The Court dismissed plaintiff's action on
September 12, 2019 due to plaintiff's failure to update
his address. See Local Rule 2.06(B). As plaintiff
has updated has address and filed his amended complaint in
accordance with the Court's July 29, 2019 Memorandum and
Order, the Court will vacate the dismissal and review
plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. However, based upon a review of the complaint,
the Court finds that the complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
U.S.C. § 1915(e)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous,
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. An action is frivolous if “it
lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An
action is malicious when it is undertaken for the purpose of
harassing litigants and not for the purpose of vindicating a
cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.Supp.
458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987), aff=d826 F.2d 1059
(4th Cir. 1987).
determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step
inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in
the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950-51
(2009). These include “legal conclusions” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements.” Id. at 1949. Second, the Court
must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim
for relief. Id. at 1950-51. This is a
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required
to plead facts that show more than the “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Id. The Court must
review the factual allegations in the complaint “to
determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief.” Id. at 1951. When faced with
alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the
Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether
plaintiff's proffered conclusion is the most plausible or
whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred.
Id. at 1950, 1951-52.
Vennis Brown, Sr. is an inmate at Western Reception
Diagnostic and Correctional Center (“WRDCC”). He
filed this action on February 15, 2019, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging that when he was a pretrial detainee at
Dunklin County Jail the Dunklin County Jail doctor did not
believe he was diabetic but he needed diabetic supplies.
plaintiff did not actually include a “Statement of
Claim” section in his original complaint but instead
simply filed with the Court four copies of sick call request
forms, the Court, on July 29, 2019, ordered plaintiff to
amend his complaint on a court form in order to set forth his
claim against the four named defendants in his complaint.
Plaintiff was ordered to file his amended complaint no later
than August 28, 2019.
was returned to the Court on August 12, 2019. Plaintiff's
new address was found by the Clerk, and the Memorandum and
Order entered on July 29, 2019 was resent to plaintiff on
that same date. When the Court failed to hear from plaintiff
and he still had not filed his amended complaint by September
12, 2019, the Court dismissed this action on that date due to
plaintiff's failure to update the Court with his new
address pursuant to Local Rule 2.06.
September 16, 2019, plaintiff filed his amended complaint in
this closed action. The Court will vacate the dismissal order
and review plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, as plaintiff was granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis on July 29, 2019. See Docket No.
brings his civil rights claims in his amended complaint
against defendants Dr. Unknown Pewhitt and Nurse Ashley
Graham. He does not indicate the capacity under which he is
states that he was housed in Dunklin County Jail on February
8, 2018. He claims that he is a diabetic and insulin
dependent. He states that he explained this to Nurse Ashley
Graham. Plaintiff asserts that Nurse Graham told him that his
sugar was normal. He states that he told Graham that he had
been “locked up three days and of course his sugar was
normal because he takes care of himself.” Plaintiff
alleges in a conclusory fashion that “I went without my
insulin and when they finally checked my sugar it was almost
600 my kidney was hurting my girlfriend brought my diabetic
supplies to the county ...