Wallace v. Crouch

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT E. WALLACE, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:21-CV-1036-RLW

)

TAMRA CROUCH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiff Robert E. Wallace, Jr.’s amended

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, and for the reasons discussed

below, the Court has determined that plaintiff’s amended complaint is still subject to dismissal,

and will order him to file a second amended complaint within thirty days.

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 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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).

Background

Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who is currently incarcerated at the Potosi

Correctional Center in Mineral Point, Missouri. On August 19, 2021, he filed a civil action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Tamra Crouch and Corizon Health Care as defendants.

(Docket No. 1). Nurse Practitioner Crouch was sued in both an individual and official capacity.

Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

(Docket No. 2). The Court granted the motion and assessed an initial partial filing fee on January

3, 2022. (Docket No. 9). Because plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviewed

his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, the Court determined that plaintiff’s

complaint was subject to dismissal. In particular, the Court noted that plaintiff had not filled out

the “Statement of Claim,” “Injuries,” or “Relief” sections of his form complaint.

Instead of dismissing the complaint outright, plaintiff was ordered to file an amended

complaint. The Court’s order included instructions on how to properly amend. Plaintiff was given

thirty days in which to comply.

The Court received plaintiff’s amended complaint on February 1, 2022. (Docket No. 10).

The Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is on a Court-provided 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights

form. As before, he names Nurse Practitioner Tamra Crouch and Corizon Health Care as

defendants. (Docket No. 10 at 2-3). Nurse Practitioner Crouch appears to be sued in an individual

capacity only. Plaintiff’s allegations concern deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

In the “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff asserts that he swallowed two pieces of metal on

January 26, 2021, while he was in administrative segregation. (Docket No. 10 at 3). He alleges

that Nurse Practitioner Crouch “denied [him] proper medical treatment (per policy),” and did not

allow him to receive outside medical treatment after his second x-ray. He repeats that Nurse

Practitioner Crouch “failed to provide [him] treatment,” and accuses Crouch of malpractice.

Plaintiff closes by asserting that Nurse Practitioner Crouch “neglected to do the requirements.”

With regard to injuries, plaintiff states that he suffered anal bleeding after swallowing the

two pieces of metal. (Docket No. 10 at 4). He claims that after swallowing the metal, he “did not

receive proper medical treatment” from January 26, 2021 until February 11, 2021. It appears that

plaintiff wants “outside medical treatment to remove [the] metal” through surgery.

As a result of this purported deliberate indifference, plaintiff seeks $2.2 million in punitive

damages, and for defendants to pay for surgery to remove the metal. (Docket No. 10 at 5). Plaintiff

states that he is “positive” that “the [metal] is inside [his] stomach as of [this] date.”

Discussion

Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who has filed an amended complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Because he is proceeding in

forma pauperis, the Court reviewed his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that

review, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court has determined that plaintiff’s amended

complaint is still deficient and subject to dismissal. However, he will be given a a final opportunity

to cure these defects by filing a second amended complaint.

A. Deficiencies in Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint is deficient and subject to dismissal for two reasons. First, he has not

stated a claim against Corizon, because he has not presented facts showing “that there was a policy,

custom, or official action that inflicted an actionable injury.” Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967,

973 (8th Cir. 2006). While plaintiff vaguely states that he was denied proper medical treatment

“per policy,” he makes no effort to explain what that policy was, much less what he means when

he asserts he was denied “proper” care. In other words, plaintiff has presented only a conclusion,

without any factual support.

Second, and similarly, plaintiff has not stated an individual capacity claim against Nurse

Practitioner Crouch. In order to establish deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must prove that he

suffered from an objectively serious medical need, and that prison officials actually knew of and

disregarded that need. Roberts v. Kopel, 917 F.3d 1039, 1042 (8th Cir. 2019). Deliberate

indifference can include the intentional denial or delay of access to medical care, or the intentional

interference with treatment or prescribed medication. Vaughn v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th

Cir. 1995). However, a showing of deliberate indifference requires more than a mere disagreement

with treatment decisions and is greater than gross negligence. Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 646

(8th Cir. 2006).

Here, plaintiff has not stated a deliberate indifference claim. While he has arguably

demonstrated a serious medical need, he has presented no facts that Nurse Practitioner Crouch

disregarded that need. Instead of explaining what Nurse Practitioner Crouch did or did not do,

plaintiff simply repeats the conclusion that he was denied proper medical treatment. There is no

indication as to what “proper” is supposed to mean, and no specific allegation as to why Nurse

Practitioner Crouch’s actions harmed him. Though it is hard to tell, based on plaintiff’s conclusory

pleadings, it appears that plaintiff is upset that he did not receive surgery. Without more, however,

this is merely a disagreement with a treatment decision, which is not a constitutional violation. For

example, there are no facts alleging that denying plaintiff surgery is dangerous or puts him at risk.

There are also no allegations that Nurse Practitioner Crouch made the decision not to allow

plaintiff to have surgery.

Rather than dismissing the case outright, plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file a

second amended complaint, according to the instructions set forth below. Plaintiff should read

these instructions carefully, as he must follow them in preparing his second amended complaint.

Failure to follow these instructions will result in the dismissal of this action.

B. Amendment Instructions

Plaintiff should type or neatly print his second amended 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”). If the

second 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 must specify whether

he intends to sue each defendant in an official capacity, an individual capacity, or both. The failure

to sue a defendant in his or her individual capacity may result in the dismissal of that defendant.

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 second 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 second 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).

The Court notes that plaintiff’s allegations in his amended complaint were conclusory and

insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff must present facts demonstrating what defendants did or did

not do to harm him. It is not sufficient for plaintiff to simply conclude that he was denied medical

care. He must explain what happened to him that amounted to a denial.

To that end, if plaintiff is suing a defendant in an individual capacity, he is required to

allege facts demonstrating the personal responsibility of the defendant for harming 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”). 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”).

Plaintiff is warned that the filing of a second amended complaint completely replaces his

prior complaints. This means that all claims that are not re-alleged in the second 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 second 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 a second 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.

C. Motion for Conference

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to schedule a “conference on motions [and] subpoenas.”

(Docket No. 11). The motion will be denied at this time as plaintiff’s amended complaint is subject

to dismissal, and he is being directed to file a second amended complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a conference (Docket No. 11) is

DENIED.

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 a second amended complaint on the

Court-provided form by March 8, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint on

the Court-provided form by March 8, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth above,

this action will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of plaintiffs second amended complaint,

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

Dated this 8th day of February, 2022.

RONNIE L. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE