EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
DAIRIUS D’WAYNE KINNIE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:23-CV-980 SRW ) ELIZABETH ALLEN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of self-represented Plaintiff Dairius D’wayne Kinnie, an inmate at the St. Louis County Justice Center (“SLCJC”), for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. ECF No. 2. Having reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted in support, the Court has determined that Plaintiff lacks sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.42. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) 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 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 his account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The each time the amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
In support of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff submitted a copy of his SLCJC ‘Inmate Account Activity’ sheet. ECF No. 3. A review of Plaintiff’s account from the relevant period indicates an average monthly deposit of $32.10 and an average monthly balance of $0.14. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.42, which is 20 percent of Plaintiff’s average monthly deposit. 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, 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). “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.” 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 555). This 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 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 self-represented 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 in order to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). The Complaint Self-represented Plaintiff filed the instant action on a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff brings his claims against Elizabeth Allen
(Health Services Administrator) and Scott Anders (Director). He appears to assert that both Defendants are employees of the St. Louis County Department of Justice. Plaintiff does not specify whether he is suing Defendants in their official or individual capacities, or both. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Allen “failed to act when Plaintiff Kinnie reported his braces were stabbing holes in his mouth from the wires,” causing him to have difficulties “maintain[ing] proper hygiene.” Id. at 5. As to Defendant Anders, Plaintiff asserts he “fail[ed] to correct [Ms. Allen’s] conduct, and encourage[d] the continuation of the conduct.” Id. For relief, Plaintiff seeks $75,000 in monetary damages for his physical injury, and pain and suffering. Id. at 6. Discussion
Having thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court will direct Plaintiff to amend his complaint for the purpose of curing his pleading deficiencies. or individual capacities, or both. Where a complaint is silent about the capacity in which a plaintiff
is suing a defendant, the district court must interpret the complaint as including only official- capacity claims. Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). Naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Plaintiff appears to assert that both Defendants are employees of the St. Louis County Department of Justice. The St. Louis County Department of Justice is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it is a department or subdivision of local government. Howell v. Dep’t of Just. Servs., 2021 WL 4255298, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 17, 2021) (citing Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (1992));
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
DAIRIUS D’WAYNE KINNIE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:23-CV-980 SRW ) ELIZABETH ALLEN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of self-represented Plaintiff Dairius D’wayne Kinnie, an inmate at the St. Louis County Justice Center (“SLCJC”), for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. ECF No. 2. Having reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted in support, the Court has determined that Plaintiff lacks sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee and will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.42. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) 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 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 his account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The each time the amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.
In support of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff submitted a copy of his SLCJC ‘Inmate Account Activity’ sheet. ECF No. 3. A review of Plaintiff’s account from the relevant period indicates an average monthly deposit of $32.10 and an average monthly balance of $0.14. Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.42, which is 20 percent of Plaintiff’s average monthly deposit. 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, 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). “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.” 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 555). This 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 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 self-represented 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 in order to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). The Complaint Self-represented Plaintiff filed the instant action on a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff brings his claims against Elizabeth Allen
(Health Services Administrator) and Scott Anders (Director). He appears to assert that both Defendants are employees of the St. Louis County Department of Justice. Plaintiff does not specify whether he is suing Defendants in their official or individual capacities, or both. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Allen “failed to act when Plaintiff Kinnie reported his braces were stabbing holes in his mouth from the wires,” causing him to have difficulties “maintain[ing] proper hygiene.” Id. at 5. As to Defendant Anders, Plaintiff asserts he “fail[ed] to correct [Ms. Allen’s] conduct, and encourage[d] the continuation of the conduct.” Id. For relief, Plaintiff seeks $75,000 in monetary damages for his physical injury, and pain and suffering. Id. at 6. Discussion
Having thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court will direct Plaintiff to amend his complaint for the purpose of curing his pleading deficiencies. or individual capacities, or both. Where a complaint is silent about the capacity in which a plaintiff
is suing a defendant, the district court must interpret the complaint as including only official- capacity claims. Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). Naming a government official in his or her official capacity is the equivalent of naming the government entity that employs the official. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Plaintiff appears to assert that both Defendants are employees of the St. Louis County Department of Justice. The St. Louis County Department of Justice is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it is a department or subdivision of local government. Howell v. Dep’t of Just. Servs., 2021 WL 4255298, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 17, 2021) (citing Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (1992));
Owens v. Scott Cty. Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating that “county jails are not legal entities amenable to suit”); and De La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cty. Jail, 18 Fed. Appx. 436, 437 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court dismissal of county jail and sheriff’s department as parties because they are not suable entities). To the extent St. Louis County employs the Defendants, Plaintiff fails to state a claim. Unlike the St. Louis County Department of Justice, St. Louis County as a local governing body can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). In order to prevail on a claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must allege that a policy or custom of the government entity is responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. Id. at 690-91. The instant complaint does not contain any allegations that a policy or
custom of St. Louis County was responsible for the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As a result, plaintiff's official capacity claims are subject to dismissal. See Ulrich v. Pope Cty., 715 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming district court's dismissal of Monell claim or custom” that caused the alleged deprivation of plaintiff’s rights).
Even if Plaintiff did name Defendants in their individual capacities, the complaint fails to adequately allege facts showing that Defendants Allen and Anders were personally aware of and disregarded a substantial risk to Plaintiff’s health or safety. “Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990), see also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (claim not cognizable under § 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible for incidents that injured plaintiff). Plaintiff does not allege specific, non-conclusory facts that he sought treatment from Defendants and was subsequently denied. Plaintiff merely states that Defendant Allen failed to act
and Defendant Anders failed to correct her conduct when he reported his braces were causing mouth pain. Plaintiff does not identify to whom he reported his medical issues, whether he saw a dentist or other medical professional at the SLCJC, the way in which he reported such issues (e.g., through a letter, grievance, or verbal conversation), how Defendant Allen specifically denied him treatment, and what exactly Defendant Anders failed to do. A federal complaint must contain the ‘who, what, when and where’ of what happened, and each defendant must be linked to a particular action.” Drummer v. Corizon Corr. Health Care, 2016 WL 3971399, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 25, 2016). To the extent Plaintiff is intending to do so, he cannot hold the Defendants liable simply because they held supervisory or administrative positions. See Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th
Cir. 1995) (claims sounding in respondeat superior are not cognizable under § 1983); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997) (a general responsibility for supervising operations of prison is insufficient to establish personal involvement required to support liability under § 1983). medical needs, and Defendants actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs. Vaughn
v. Greene County, 438 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2006). Instructions on Amending the Complaint Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, and so it must include all claims he wishes to bring. See In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect.”). Plaintiff must type or neatly print the amended complaint on the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form, which will be provided to him. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 45 – 2.06(A) (“All actions brought by self-represented plaintiffs or petitioners should be filed on Court-provided
forms.”). In the “Caption” section of the amended complaint, Plaintiff must state the first and last name, to the extent he knows it, of each defendant he wishes to sue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties”). Plaintiff must avoid naming anyone as a defendant unless that person is directly related to his claim. Plaintiff must also specify whether he intends to sue each defendant in his or her individual capacity, official capacity, or both. In the “Statement of Claim” section, Plaintiff should begin by writing the defendant’s name. In separate, numbered paragraphs under that name, Plaintiff should set forth a short and plain statement of the facts that support his claim or claims against that defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Each averment must be simple, concise, and direct. See id. Plaintiff must state his claims
in numbered paragraphs, and each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). If Plaintiff names a single defendant, he may set forth as many claims as he has against that defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If Plaintiff names more occurrence, or simply put, claims that are related to each other. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
It is important that Plaintiff allege facts explaining how each defendant was personally involved in or directly responsible for harming him. See Madewell, 909 F.2d at 1208. A claim alleging the liability of a party solely because he or she held an administrative or supervisory position is not cognizable in a civil rights action. See Boyd, 47 F.3d at 968 (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in § 1983 cases). A supervisor is liable for the actions of his subordinates under § 1983 only if he personally participates in the alleged unconstitutional conduct, or when there is a causal connection between his actions and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Glick v. Sargent, 696 F.2d 413, 415 (8th Cir. 1983) (warden must play a personal role in the disciplinary process; he cannot be held liable for the outcome of the process).
Plaintiff must explain the role of the defendant, so that the defendant will have notice of what he or she is accused of doing or failing to do. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that the essential function of a complaint “is to give the opposing party fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim”). Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the “Statement of Claim” requires more than “labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” See Neubauer v. FedEx Corp., 849 F.3d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff must not amend his complaint by filing separate documents. Instead, he must file a single, comprehensive pleading on a Court-provided form that sets forth his claims for relief. Motion to Appoint Counsel
Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 4. In civil cases, a self-represented litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). See also Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) in a civil case”). Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if the court is
“convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim . . . and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, a court considers relevant factors such as the complexity of the case, the ability of the self-represented litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the self-represented litigant to present his or her claim. Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). After considering these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is unwarranted at this time. Plaintiff has yet to file a complaint that survives initial review, so it
cannot be said that he has presented non-frivolous claims. Additionally, this case appears to involve straightforward factual and legal issues, and there is no indication that Plaintiff cannot investigate the facts and present his claims to the Court. The Court will therefore deny his motion without prejudice, and will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel, if appropriate, as the case progresses. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $6.42 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to
“Clerk, United States District Court,” and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint in accordance with the instructions set forth herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to Plaintiff two blank Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint forms. Plaintiff may request additional forms as needed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 4] is DENIED without prejudice at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Memorandum and Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice. Dated this 14th day of August, 2023.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE