Williams v. Howard

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<f

DAVID D. NOCE —

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE