Engel v. CO1

District Court, E.D. Missouri·Decided February 5, 2021·No. 4:20-cv-01903·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH MICHAEL DEVON ENGEL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:20-CV-1903 NCC ) CO1, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff Joseph Michael Devon Engel’s self-represented complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will order plaintiff to file a signed, amended complaint on a Court-provided form. Plaintiff will also be directed to either file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on a Court-provided form or pay the full $400 filing fee. Plaintiff will have twenty-one (21) days to comply with this Memorandum and Order. Complaint Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 11, 2020. Plaintiff’s complaint is handwritten and not on a court form. Plaintiff brings this action against more than forty (40) defendants: CO1; CO2; SG; LT; Corpel; Captin; Major; FUM; CCM; CCM Assist; Superintendent; Superintendent Assist; Assist Warden; Warden; CCA; ERDCC; IPO; IPO Supervisor; P&P Director; P&P Assist Director; P&P; MODOC; MODOC Director; MODOC Assist Director; Assist Att General; Att General; Lt Govener; Governer; House Rep MO; Sentor MO; Corizon Health Care; Corizon Director; Corizon Asst Director; Corizon Assist Superintendent; Corizon Superintendent; Corizon Supsivor ERDCC; Corizon ERDCC; Corizon Doctor; Corizon Nurse Practitioner; Corizon RN; Corizon LPN; Corizon CNA; and Corizon Med Tec; Corizon Chronic Care.1 He sues defendants in their official capacities only. Plaintiff alleges his claims as follows: [H]ave to sleep cureld [sic] up in a Ball on my Left side sever [sic] pain. Corizon & MODOC ERDCC Refuse to treat me then put me in their Quertiane [sic] Wing so I run the chance of getting Corrna [sic] also I need help. I’m a sourvin [sic] Citiz[e]n.

. . .

This is in Regards to on [sic] this Date 11-24-20 my insides feel like their [sic] on fire, can’t hold nothing Down Puking Blood, shitting Blood Clear liquid, uncontrol[a]ble shakes, SWEATS, night Trumors [sic].

ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff provides no additional facts and does not indicate the relationship between the defendants and his statement of the claim. Plaintiff has not outlined in his complaint exactly who at the prison purportedly violated his rights, how he was refused treatment, that each named defendant actually knew he was experiencing a medical condition, and why he believes he is entitled to damages in this action.2 Plaintiff describes his injuries as “Health, Mental Health, Freedom, Religion, PTSD, Anxi[e]ty, Sourvin [sic] Citiz[e]n, [and] Panic Att[a]cks.” Id. For relief, he lists each defendant and requests a separate, arbitrary amount from each individual or entity spanning from “40

1 The Court has listed the defendants in the same manner in which plaintiff has spelled and/or abbreviated their names in the handwritten complaint.

2 Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged 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); Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (respondeat superior theory inapplicable in § 1983 suits). In the instant action, plaintiff has not set forth any facts indicating that any of the named defendants were directly involved in or personally responsible for the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Million Dollars” to “200 Trillion Dollars” dollars. For example, plaintiff seeks “7 Trillion Dollars” from the Governor, “15 Trillion Dollars” from a Corizon nurse practitioner, and “500 Million Dollars” from the ERDCC. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also seeks “3,000,000 stocks in Bit Coin, Steel, Lead, Coal, Zinc, Gold, Silver, Platnium [sic], Precious Metals, Aluminum, Pepsi, Co[ca] Cola, Dr. Pep[p]er, Coffee, Starbucks, Beef, Pork, Chicken, Corn, Wheat, Fruits, Vegs, Fruits,

GMC, Ford, Dodge, [and] BMW” for himself and the “same amount” of stocks for non-party “Christopher Jones.” Id. Plaintiff additionally seeks millions of dollars of stocks in various other companies and countries, including Sprint, Verizon, Sears, JP Morgan, Best Buy, Wal- Mart, Dell, Russia, Germany, “all World Currency” and “Top World Banks.” Id. at 3-4. He also requests the Court to award “1 million a pi[e]ce” to over three dozen individuals, assumably friends of family, who appear to be unrelated to this action.3 Plaintiff has failed to file this action on a court-form, and he has failed to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on a separate court form or file an accompanying prison account statement.

Discussion Plaintiff’s complaint is deficient as pled. The complaint is not on a court-form as required by Local Rule 2.06(A). Additionally, as pled, the complaint is subject to dismissal at this time as plaintiff has not sufficiently pled how his rights were violated and who purportedly violated his rights.

3 Plaintiff’s bizarre request to recover thousands of trillions of dollars in damages from more than forty individuals and entities as well as stocks from companies and foreign countries with no apparent connection to this action for a deliberate indifference claim based on conclusory allegations appears to be “clearly baseless” under the standard articulated in Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 25, 31-33 (1992). Consequently, the complaint is subject to dismissal for this reason, as well. Because plaintiff is self-represented, the Court will give him the opportunity to file a signed, amended complaint to set forth his own claims for relief. He must put his case number on his amended complaint. Plaintiff should type or neatly print his complaint on the Court’s prisoner civil rights form, which will be provided to him. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(A) (“All actions brought by self-represented plaintiffs or petitioners should be filed on Court-provided

forms where applicable.”). In the “Caption” section of the Court-provided form, plaintiff should clearly name each and every party he is intending to sue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties”). In the “Statement of Claim” section, plaintiff should provide a short and plain statement of the factual allegations supporting his claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should put each claim into a numbered paragraph, and each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff should begin by writing the defendant’s name. In separate, numbered paragraphs under that name, plaintiff should write a short and plain statement of the factual allegations supporting his claim against that specific

defendant. If plaintiff is suing more than one defendant, he should follow the same procedure for each defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Engel v. CO1, (E.D. Mo. 2021).

Engel v. CO1 (Engel v. CO1) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Samvel Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
760 F.3d 843 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
Mark Neubauer v. FedEx Corporation
849 F.3d 400 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)
Boyd v. Knox
47 F.3d 966 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)
Martin v. Sargent
780 F.2d 1334 (Eighth Circuit, 1985)
Madewell v. Roberts
909 F.2d 1203 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)