Williams v. Howard

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: February 11, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00154
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TROY WILLIAMS, } Plaintiff, VS. Case No. 4:22-CV-154 DDN WOODY HOWARD, et al, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion of self-represented plaintiff Troy Williams, a resident at the Southeast Missouri Department of Mental Health (““SMDMH”), for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. ECF No. 2. Having reviewed the financial information submitted in support, the Court will grant the motion, See 28 § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will allow plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint.! 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 itis 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 cither law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 US. 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).

Although plaintiff has previously filed thirty-two civil rights complaits in this Court, he is not subject to the three- strikes rule contained within the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) because he is a civilly-committed litigant, Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F. 3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2001),

“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. /d. 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.” /d. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). This Court must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle vy. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This means that “if the essence of an allegation is discernible,” the court should “construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within 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 aliege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin vy. 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 y. 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. Plaintiffs caption is difficult to read, but it appears he is bringing this action against three defendants: (1) Woody Howard, who he describes as “Owner ATT Phone,” (2) Sheriff Robert Mays, who he described as “Friend,” and, (3) Jimmy Neal, who he identifies as a staff member at the Farmington State Hospital.

“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. Jd. 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.” 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 should “construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within 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's caption is difficult to read, but it appears he is bringing this action against three defendants: (1) Woody Howard, who he describes as “Owner ATT Phone,” (2) Sheriff Robert Mays, who he described as “Friend,” and Jimmy Neal, who he identifies as a staff member at the Farmington State Hospital. □□ □

The remainder of the complaint, including the ‘statement of claim’ and ‘injuries’ sections, is illegible in both its original form and as an electronic document. As a result, the Court will order plaintiff to submit an amended complaint. 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 plaintiff wishes to bring. See Jn 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). For example, plaintiff should write the name of the first defendant and in numbered paragraphs under that name state how that specific defendant

allegedly violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff should repeat this format for each named defendant. 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 than one defendant, he should only include claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or simply put, claims that are related to each other. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). To the extent plaintiff is attempting to bring this action against his “friend,” such a claim is subject to dismissal. In order to state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that a defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To that end, plaintiff's amended complaint shall only name state actors. See Carlson v. Roetzel & Andress, 552 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 349 (1974)) (stating that § 1983 secures constitutional rights from government infringement, not infringement by private parties). It is also important that plaintiff allege facts explaining how each state actor defendant was personaliy 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 v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (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 a complaint by filing separate documents. Instead, he must file a single, comprehensive pleading that sets forth his claims for relief. Upon receipt of the amended complaint, the Court will review it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court will also review plaintiffs pending motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff warned that his failure to timely comply will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. See Brown vy. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with any court order); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th Cir, 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where self-represented plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite being cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do so. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. 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, 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. The amended complaint must be legible,

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 4 of February, 2022. NB ek WD) lo