# Luh v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · February 5, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234440

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** February 5, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234440

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”
- stating that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

TODD J. LUH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-cv-01513-HEA
)
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
DEPARTMENT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Todd J. Luh for leave to
commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 2). Having
reviewed the motion, the Court finds that it should be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will direct plaintiff to file 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 it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To
state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “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 upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679. The court must “accept as
true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir.
2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating
that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true
any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit
of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal construction”
means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the
plaintiff’s complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints
are required to 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). See also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th
Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just
because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). In addition,
affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that procedural

rules in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
The Complaint
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who has filed a civil action against the Jefferson
County Sheriff’s Department, the Missouri Highway Patrol, and the State of Missouri. (Docket
No. 1 at 2-3). In his “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff asserts that he has been “assaulted and
threatened on numerous occasions because of the sex registry and it’s inaccurate portrayal of the
circumstances of [his] arrest.” (Docket No. 1 at 7). He further alleges that the Jefferson County
Sheriff’s Department has “harassed” him by informing him that there was a warrant for his arrest.
Additionally, plaintiff contends that the reporting requirement for “the sex registry” is not
administrative, but punitive, and that it is “a retroactive law and unconstitutional.” He also states
that government employees should not “be allowed to harm any person and be immune from any
legal review.”

In an attachment to the complaint, plaintiff states that he was advised by a sheriff’s deputy
that the Missouri Highway Patrol wanted a sample of his DNA. (Docket No. 1-1 at 1). Apparently,
he was also told there was a warrant for his arrest. Plaintiff states that he filed a civil suit in
Missouri court challenging the collection of his DNA, since he “know[s] [his] DNA will not
provide anything that would be useful to any investigator.” Plaintiff claims there are a number of
issues about the sex registry “that are at the very least unconstitutional.” He explains that he has
filed the instant action because “there have been numerous errors by the state court that appear to
be designed to delay…any protective order and allow [him] to be abuse[d] by the State once
again.”1 Plaintiff further notes that he was “tortured by the State” for ten-and-a-half years, that he
was starved and assaulted by staff at a mental hospital, and that he was “attacked by criminals and

crazies who were paid by staff to do so over 200 times in just the last 4 years at the nuthouse.”
(Docket No. 1-1 at 2).
Plaintiff seeks an injunction to prohibit the collection of his DNA. (Docket No. 1 at 7). He
also claims unspecified monetary damages. (Docket No. 1 at 8).
Discussion
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who has brought this civil action against the Jefferson
County Sheriff’s Department, the Missouri Highway Patrol, and the State of Missouri. Having

1 The Court reviewed plaintiff’s state court case on Case.net, Missouri’s online case management system. According
to the docket sheet, plaintiff’s case was dismissed on June 22, 2020, when the parties failed to appear for a hearing.
Luh v. Jefferson County Sheriff’s Dept., No. 20JE-CC00036 (23rd Jud. Cir., Jefferson County).
reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court has determined that it is subject
to dismissal. However, plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
A. Deficiencies in Complaint
Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal because he has not provided a “short and plain

statement of the claim showing that” he is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Instead,
plaintiff’s complaint contains extraneous material, irrelevant statements, legal arguments, and
unsupported propositions, none of which go to show that the named defendants harmed him, or
that he is entitled to the relief he has requested. Similarly, plaintiff’s allegations amount to
sweeping legal conclusions about the constitutionality of the Missouri sex registry, without any
indication as to why it violates plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Such broad and conclusory pleading
is not sufficient to state a claim. See Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir.
2002) (“While the court must accept allegations of fact as true…the court is free to ignore legal
conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal conclusions
cast in the form of factual allegations”). For these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is subject to

dismissal. However, because he is a self-represented litigant, plaintiff will be given an opportunity
to file an amended complaint according to the instructions set forth below.
B. Amendment Instructions
Plaintiff should type or neatly print his amended complaint on the Court’s 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”). If the amended
complaint is handwritten, the writing must be legible. 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”). If there is not enough
room in the caption, plaintiff may add additional sheets of paper. However, all the defendants must
be clearly listed.
Plaintiff should fill out the complaint form in its entirety. This includes the section asserting
the Court’s jurisdiction. If plaintiff believes the Court has federal question jurisdiction, he must

list the specific federal statutes, federal treaties, or provisions of the United States Constitution that
are at issue. He should avoid using this section to make arguments, but should instead provide the
federal basis for his claim.
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).
The amended complaint should only include claims that arise out of the same transaction
or occurrence. In other words, plaintiff should only include claims that are related to each other.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Alternatively, plaintiff may choose a single defendant and set forth

as many claims as he has against that defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).
In structuring his amended complaint, 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.
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). Rather, plaintiff’s factual allegations must “raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” See Torti v. Hoag, 868 F.3d 666, 671 (8th Cir. 2017).
Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint completely replaces the
original complaint. This means that claims that are not re-alleged in the amended complaint will
be deemed abandoned. See In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928
(8th Cir. 2005) (“It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint

and renders the original complaint without legal effect”).
After receiving the amended complaint, the Court will review it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided form within thirty days
in accordance with the instructions set forth above, the Court will dismiss this action without
prejudice and without further notice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send to plaintiff a copy of the
Court’s civil complaint form.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on the Court-
provided form within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on a
Court-provided form within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, this action will be dismissed
without prejudice and without further notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of plaintiff's amended complaint, the
Court will review it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Dated this 5" day of February, 2021. —
HENRY EDWARD {lab
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10234440. Public record. Not legal advice.