United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
RAMORI V. ROGERS, SR., Plaintiff,
UNKNOWN DOCTOR, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA L. COHEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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.
Partial Filing Fee
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.
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.
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, 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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