Robinson IV v. Mehling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

ANSON NOLAND ROBINSON IV, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:21-cv-00693-PLC

)

ANTHONY MEHLING, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Anson Noland Robinson IV

for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee.1 (Docket

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 $52.28. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons

discussed below, the Court will order Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a Court form.

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 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

1 Plaintiff was granted provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis by the United States District Court for the

Western District of Missouri on June 8, 2021. The Western District then transferred the case to this Court.

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 $10.00,

until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.

Here, Plaintiff initially filed his complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. (Docket No. 1;

Docket No. 2). The Western District provisionally granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and transferred the matter to this Court on June 8, 2021. (Docket No. 5). No filing fee

was assessed at that time.

In support of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff attached a copy

of his certified inmate account statement. (Docket No. 3). The account statement shows an average

monthly deposit of $261.38. The Court will therefore assess an initial partial filing fee of $52.28,

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 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 28 U.S.C. § 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 is currently incarcerated at the Phelps County

Jail in Rolla, Missouri. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that excessive

force was used against him while he was a pretrial detainee. The complaint names Officer Anthony

Mehling and Officer Timothy Durbin as defendants. (Docket No. 1 at 2-3). Officers Mehling and

Durbin are sued in both their official and individual capacities.

In his brief “Statement of Claim,” Plaintiff asserts that on April 26, 2021, Officer Mehling

pepper-sprayed him while he was sitting on the ground in a holding cell. (Docket No. 1 at 4).

According to Plaintiff, Officer Durbin gave Officer Mehling the order to deploy mace.

As a result of this incident, Plaintiff’s eyes burned and his skin was irritated. Because he

had long hair, the mace was “stuck…for several days,” and when he tried to shower, the mace was

reactivated and caused additional pain. (Docket No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and

punitive damages. (Docket No. 1 at 6).

A. Deficiencies in Complaint

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court has determined that it is subject to

dismissal for failure to state a claim. With regard to the official capacity claims against Officer

Mehling and Officer Durbin, the Court notes that such claims are treated as being made against

defendants’ employer, which is Phelps County. See White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064, 1075 (8th

Cir. 2017) (explaining that an official capacity claim against an individual is actually “against the

governmental entity itself”). However, Plaintiff has not presented any facts demonstrating that his

constitutional rights were violated due to a Phelps County policy, custom, or failure to train. See

Mick v. Raines, 883 F.3d 1075, 1079 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining that municipal liability may attach

if a constitutional violation “resulted from (1) an official municipal policy, (2) an unofficial

custom, or (3) a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise”).

As to the individual capacity claims, Plaintiff has accused Officers Mehling and Durbin of

using excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause protects

pretrial detainees from the use of excessive force amounting to punishment. Kingsley v.

Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979)

(stating that “under the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an

adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law”); and Smith v. Conway Cty., Ark., 759

F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that “the Due Process Clause prohibits any punishment of a

pretrial detainee, be that punishment cruel-and-unusual or not”). Analysis of excessive force

claims under the Due Process Clause focuses on whether the defendant’s purpose in using force

was “to injure, punish, or discipline the detainee.” Edwards v. Byrd, 750 F.3d 728, 732 (8th Cir.

2014).

The Fourteenth Amendment gives state pretrial detainees “rights which are at least as great

as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.” Walton v. Dawson, 752

F.3d 1109, 1117 (8th Cir. 2014). Indeed, pretrial detainees are afforded greater protection than

convicted inmates in the sense that the Due Process Clause prohibits the detainee from being

punished. Id.

Here, Plaintiff has not presented any facts indicating that the use of mace against him was

excessive or that it amounted to punishment. He states only that pepper spray was deployed against

him “while sitting on the floor.” Beyond this, there are no allegations describing the context of the

incident. For example, Plaintiff does not allege that he was being compliant, that he was following

directives, or that he was otherwise acting in such a way that would make the deployment of pepper

spray unnecessary. He also does not show that the officers were acting punitively in using mace.

Instead of providing the necessary factual support, Plaintiff asserts a legal conclusion, which is not

entitled to the presumption of truth. See Glick v. Western Power Sports, Inc., 944 F.3d 714, 717

(8th Cir. 2019) (stating that a court “need not accept as true a plaintiff’s conclusory allegations or

legal conclusions drawn from the facts”). Without any additional information, Plaintiff has not

sufficiently stated a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Rather than dismissing outright, however, the Court will give Plaintiff 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.

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, and ensure that it is signed.

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).

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.

Plaintiff must specify whether he intends to sue each defendant in an official capacity, an

individual capacity, or both. If Plaintiff is suing a defendant in an individual capacity, he is

required to allege facts demonstrating a defendant’s personal responsibility for causing harm to

him. See Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (stating that § 1983 liability

“requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights”). 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).

If Plaintiff is suing multiple defendants, it is important that he establish the responsibility

of each separate defendant for harming him. That is, for each defendant, Plaintiff must allege facts

showing how that particular defendant’s acts or omissions violated his constitutional rights. It is

not enough for Plaintiff to make general allegations against all the defendants as a group. Rather,

Plaintiff needs to provide the role of each named defendant in this case, in order that each specific

defendant can receive notice of what he or she is accused of doing. 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”).

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).

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. Plaintiff’s failure to make specific factual allegations against a defendant will result in the

dismissal of that defendant. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided

form within thirty days in accordance with the instructions set forth herein, the Court will dismiss

this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.

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 Plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee of $52.28

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) the statement that the remittance is for an original

proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send to Plaintiff a copy of the

Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on the Court-

provided form in accordance with the instructions set forth above within thirty (30) days of the

date of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on the

Court-provided form in accordance with the instructions set forth above within thirty (30) days

of the date of this order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further

notice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon the filing of Plaintiff's amended complaint, the

Court will review it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

5 Dp a ? a

Jef 1 7 them

PATRICIA L. COHEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this 18th day of November, 2021