Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rogers v. Unknown Doctor

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

January 14, 2020

RAMORI V. ROGERS, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN DOCTOR, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          PATRICIA L. COHEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court upon the Court's review of pro se Plaintiff Ramori V. Rogers, Sr.'s multiple filings. On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to commence this action without prepayment of the required filing fee. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff also filed a letter appearing to request appointment of counsel. ECF No. 5. On November 4, 2019, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint stating all of his allegations and naming all of the defendants in one document. In response, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court and an amended complaint on the court-provided form, which both appear to contain allegations brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF Nos. 11, 12.

         Initial Partial Filing Fee

         Pursuant 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.

         In Plaintiff's signed and sworn application to proceed without prepayment of fees, dated September 19, 2019, Plaintiff states that he is not employed, has no income, and has received no money in the past twelve months. ECF No. 6. However, Plaintiff filed an inmate account statement dated August 16, 2019, that indicates his prison account had deposits totaling $370.00 over a six-month period. See ECF No. 2 at 2. Based on this number, Plaintiff's average monthly deposit total is $61.67. Twenty (20) percent of this amount would be $12.33. The Court finds that Plaintiff has insufficient funds in his prison account to pay the entire fee and will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee of $12.33.

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, is 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. To state a claim for relief, 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 draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.

         When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. See, e.g., White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (in reviewing a dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint under § 1915, a court takes the facts “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded [factual] allegations are considered as true”). Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations in a pro se complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).

         Background

         Plaintiff initiated this action on August 30, 2019, by filing a civil rights complaint in this Court that included a caption for the District of Arizona. ECF No. 1. On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court in which he requested to “add[] new defendants to this suit” and increase the amount of damages sought. ECF No. 7 at 1, 2. The Court issued an Order on November 4, 2019, cautioning Plaintiff that the Court's Local Rules do not permit parties to communicate with the Court by informal letters and reminding him that parties may only address the Court through motions and memoranda, unless otherwise directed by the Court. ECF No. 8. In order to clarify the record, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that included all changes he wanted to make to his claims and the defendants. The Court provided Plaintiff with some instructions for filing an amended complaint and warned him that his amended complaint would completely replace his initial complaint. The Court also advised Plaintiff that, due to the pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court would review his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Plaintiff's amended complaint was due by December 4, 2019, but the Court granted him an extension until December 20, 2019. ECF No. 10.

         Plaintiff's Recent Filings

         On December 16, 2019, despite the Court's warning, Plaintiff again filed a letter with the Court. ECF No. 11. In the letter dated December 11, 2019, Plaintiff includes six separate pages which each begin with a name - presumably the names of the defendants he wishes to sue - and then lists the “reason for suit.” Id. at 2-7. The Defendants Plaintiff listed are: (1) “Jenseen” Pharmaceuticals; (2) Employees of Lincoln County Jail; (3) Lincoln County Jail; (4) Johnson & Johnson; (5) United States Marshals; and (6) Doctors at Lincoln County. Id. The basis of Plaintiff's allegations against all of these Defendants seems to center around his belief that he received a “dangerous” medication while being detained at the Lincoln County Jail beginning in February 2016. On the final page of his letter he finally names this drug as “Respidol.” Id. at 7.

         Plaintiff alleges that “Jenseen” makes this “dangerous” drug for Johnson & Johnson which has been distributing it for years despite the known damage it causes. Id. at 2, 5. As for Defendant “Employees of Lincoln County Jail, ” Plaintiff states that he is suing “every employee” in their individual and official capacities for negligently providing him with a dangerous medication. Id. at 3. Plaintiff further alleges that the Lincoln County Jail was negligent in its hiring and supervising of doctors and nurses, resulting in the following injuries to him: enlarged and lactating breast; sleep insomnia; erectile dysfunction; extreme weight gain; blurred vision; mental and psychological problems; ruined facial skin; extreme hair loss; ear infections; swollen limbs; and loss of balance. Id. at 4. Plaintiff asserts that after his arrest in February 2016, he was under the care and custody of the U.S. Marshals when he was given this dangerous medication at the Lincoln County Jail. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. Marshals are responsible because they were negligent in not ensuring that he was being properly cared for. Id. at 6. Finally, as for Defendant “Doctors at Lincoln County, ” Plaintiff alleges that a doctor known as the “Veterinarian” prescribed him “Respidol.” Id. at 7. Despite the many side-effects Plaintiff experienced soon after starting the drug, the doctor increased his dosage to the maximum allowable, which resulted in injuries to Plaintiff.

         Two days after Plaintiff filed his letter, the Court received an amended complaint from Plaintiff, on the court-provided form, that was signed the same date as his letter. ECF No. 12. In the caption of the amended complaint, Plaintiff lists the same six Defendants who were named in his letter. In the ‘Statement of the Claim' section of his amended complaint, Plaintiff states that from February 2016 until March 2018, he was given medication “with improper supervision” at the Lincoln County Jail. Id. at 3. As a result, Plaintiff alleges he suffered the following injuries: “weight gain, erectile dysfunction, lactating breast, growing breast, sleep [insomnia], ruined body full of stretch marks, skin irritation, a multitude of mental illness, self [conscience], lackadaisically living day to day, embarrassment day to day, [and] divorce due to unable to engage in intercourse or produce more children due to permanent [erectile dysfunction].” Id. As for Defendant Johnson & Johnson, Plaintiff alleges that it continues to make “billions” while not discontinuing sales of this medication despite being “fully aware” that the medication is harmful when ingested. Plaintiff also asserts that the medication should be given with a warning about known side effects. Id. at 3-4. As for Defendant Jenseen Pharmaceuticals, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.