Stafford v. Basham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN STAFFORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) No. 4:22-CV-178-SEP

)

MICHELLE BASHAM, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court are three motions and an amended complaint filed by Plaintiff Steven

Stafford.1 The Court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and assess an initial

partial filing fee of $9.82. The Court will also give Plaintiff the opportunity to file a second

amended complaint and will deny without prejudice his motion to appoint counsel and his

“Motion to be Removed From Transfer List.”

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

must pay the full filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in his prison account to pay the

entire fee, the Court must assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial filing fee of 20%

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. Thereafter, the

prisoner must make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to his

account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of the prisoner will forward the

monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00,

until the filing fee is fully paid. Id. Plaintiff’s certified inmate account statement showed an

average monthly deposit of $22.69 and an average monthly balance of $49.10. The initial partial

filing fee is therefore $9.82, which is 20% of Plaintiff’s average monthly balance.

1 As explained in this Court’s March 22, 2022, Memorandum and Order, this action began after Plaintiff

and other prisoners attempted to jointly file a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to claim violations

of inmate rights. Plaintiff did not sign the complaint, nor pay the filing fee, nor move for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. The instant action was opened on Plaintiff’s behalf using the complaint from the

originating action, and Plaintiff was directed to either pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. He was also allowed to file an amended complaint to allege his own claims for relief. Plaintiff

complied by filing the instant motion and 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 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,

or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is

frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

328 (1989). 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 on its 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) (court 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 . . . then the district 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 pro se complaints

must “allege facts, which if true, state a claim 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)

(federal courts not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional

factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). And “procedural rules in ordinary

civil litigation” need not 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 AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed the 36-page Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

numerous defendants. Named in the caption of the amended complaint are the following

defendants: Michelle Basham; Carl Hart; Gary Fenwick; Patricia Lamarche; Benjamin Laxton;

Ronald Dunnigan; Adam Simonton; Charles Wadlow; Dennis Spaulding; “COI” Jennings,

Stevens, Allen, Debrois, and Price; “FSM” Luebbers; Corizon Medical; Jane/John Doe,

Attending Nurse; and Ashley Downs. The statement of his claim includes allegations against

other individuals identified by name or job title, but it is not clear whether Plaintiff intends to sue

those individuals in this action as well.

The Amended Complaint asserts a variety of claims, including excessive force,

harassment, conspiracy, retaliation, denial of religious accommodations, denial of access to the

grievance procedure, and deliberate indifference to the medical needs of inmates. Plaintiff also

asserts claims premised upon the wrongful destruction of his personal property and wrongful

termination from his prison job. Plaintiff indicates an intent to assert at least some claims on

behalf of other inmates. For example, Plaintiff claims Basham “abused her authoritative position

as a veteran supervisor, of the Missouri Department of Corrections, by violating our religious

freedoms afforded to us through and under, the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act [RFRA],

and the Religious Land Use and Incarcerate[d] Persons Act [RLUIPA] . . . .” Doc. 4 at 18.

Provided with the Amended Complaint is a lengthy exhibit, consisting mainly of copies of

grievance documents Plaintiff filed concerning some of the events described in the Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff’s allegations include the following:

• On February 28, 2021, while Plaintiff and other inmates were praying, Hart

pepper sprayed them. Later, Spaulding threw Plaintiff to the ground, and another

guard choked him. Simonton removed Plaintiff’s personal clothing from him by

cutting it, thereby destroying his personal property. Id. at 26.

• Unspecified persons left Plaintiff in a cold cell without clothing or access to water

for an unspecified period of time. Plaintiff was later given underwear, but it was

tainted and it burned his skin. Id.

• “There was no medical assistance and we were denied showers for over 16 1/2

hours.” Id.

• “Lt. Wrink and another Sgt” said that “if we pray again back in that wing; be

prepared for the same thing to happen again.” Id. at 28.

• Individuals named Bennet, Moffet, Perry, and a person whose name is illegible

“refused to give us IRR’s so we could file on the assault.” Id. at 26. Plaintiff

indicates that other individuals failed to “give us an IRR” as well, and he alleges

other violations of his right to grieve matters at the facility. Id. at 27. “Jefferson

City” responded to his complaint concerning the use of force, but “all other

complaints are lost . . . .” Id. at 30.

• Hart and Basham conspired with food service staff to remove Plaintiff from his

work assignment. Id. at 33.

• The Muslim population at the facility is wrongfully denied the ability to purchase

religious items from “bona fide vendors.” Id. at 34.

Plaintiff also purports to set forth some claims by referring the Court to his attached 59-

page exhibit, which contains copies of grievance documents and other materials. It appears that

Plaintiff intends for the Court to review the documents in the exhibit and use them to piece

together some of his claims.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and various forms of equitable relief. For example, he

asks this Court to order staff to wear body cameras and preserve institutional videos, and to order

“[e]ach defendant to be deposed and administered a certified voice stress analysis test.” Id. at

36. He also seeks an order directing that Hart and Basham face criminal prosecution.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff did not follow the Court’s instructions when preparing the Amended Complaint.

The Amended Complaint advances unrelated claims against not one but many defendants. As

this Court explained in its prior order, that is an impermissible pleading practice. Rule 20(a)(2)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs joinder of defendants:

Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any

right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the

alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any

question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the

action.

Thus, Plaintiff may not join, in a single lawsuit, unrelated claims against different defendants.

Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs joinder of claims:

A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim,

cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or

as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as

the party has against an opposing party.

Accordingly, Plaintiff may assert multiple claims against a single defendant.

The Amended Complaint also purports to assert some claims on behalf of inmates other

than Plaintiff. As this Court explained in its prior order, while federal law authorizes Plaintiff to

plead and conduct his own case personally, he lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of others.

See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (in general, to satisfy the standing requirement, a

Plaintiff “must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the

legal rights or interests of third parties”). Plaintiff also does not claim to be a licensed attorney

and therefore he may not bring claims in federal court on behalf of other individuals. See 28

U.S.C. § 1654; Lewis v. Lenc–Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 830 (7th Cir. 1986) (a person who

is not licensed to practice law may not represent another individual in federal court).

Plaintiff also prepared the Amended Complaint in a manner that obscures his claims and

would make an orderly trial impossible. It is apparent that Plaintiff intends to claim he was

denied religious accommodations and subjected to excessive force, but his actual claims are

obscured in a lengthy and meandering pleading. As the Court explained in its prior order,

Plaintiff must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8, which requires him

to set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief.

The Court will not dismiss this action at this time, and will instead give Plaintiff the

opportunity to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that any second amended

complaint will replace both his original Complaint, Doc. 1, and his Amended Complaint, Doc. 4.

See In 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 his

second amended complaint on the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint 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 where applicable.”).

In the “Caption” section of the complaint form, Plaintiff should write the name of the

defendant he intends 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 the capacity in which he sues each defendant.

In the “Statement of Claim” section, Plaintiff should begin by writing a 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 statement 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).

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—i.e., claims that are

related to each other. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

Any second amended complaint should include facts explaining how each defendant was

personally involved in or directly responsible for harming Plaintiff. See Madewell v. Roberts,

909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990). It must explain the role of each defendant so that each

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) (essential function of a

complaint “is to give the opposing party fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a

claim”). The “Statement of Claim” requires more than “labels and conclusions or a formulaic

recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Neubauer v. FedEx Corp., 849 F.3d 400, 404

(8th Cir. 2017).

Plaintiff may not amend or supplement his complaint by filing separate documents

containing changes he wants made to certain parts. Additionally, Plaintiff may not attach

exhibits to a complaint and instruct the Court to review them and piece together his claims.

Instead, Plaintiff must file a single, comprehensive second amended complaint that contains

specific facts in support of his claim or claims. Plaintiff shall have 21 days to file a second

amended complaint, which will then be subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to appoint counsel. A pro se litigant has “neither a

constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902

F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.

2006)). A district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if it is “convinced that an indigent

Plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim . . . and where the nature of the litigation is such that

Plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Id. (citing Johnson v.

Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986)). When determining whether to appoint counsel

for an indigent litigant, a court considers factors such as the factual complexity of the issues, the

litigant’s ability to investigate the facts and present his claims, the existence of conflicting

testimony, and the complexity of the legal arguments. Id. (citing Phillips, 437 F.3d at 794).

In this case, there is no indication that Plaintiff is incapable of representing himself, and

nothing in the instant motion or the record before the Court indicates that the factual or legal

issues are sufficiently complex to justify the appointment of counsel. Also, service of process

has not occurred and discovery has not begun, so there is no conflicting testimony. Recognizing

that circumstances may change, the Court will deny the motion for appointment of counsel

without prejudice, and will entertain future such motions, if appropriate, as the case progresses.

MOTION TO BE REMOVED FROM TRANSFER LIST

Plaintiff has also filed a document entitled “Motion to be Removed From Transfer List.”

Doc. 8. In it, he asks this Court to “order Plaintiff to be placed on the ‘non-transferable list,’ as

any transfer of Plaintiff to another correctional facility further from St. Louis would be

considered a form of retaliation against Plaintiff due to the pending litigation Plaintiff has with

the Missouri Department of Corrections employees and its staff at the Eastern Reception,

Diagnostic and Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Missouri.” Id. at 1.

Plaintiff does not identify any procedural basis for the motion. To the extent he could be

understood to be seeking relief under Rule 65(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he

has failed to establish entitlement to relief. Rule 65(b)(1) governs issuing a temporary

restraining order without notice to the adverse party or his attorney. Under Rule 65(b)(1), this

Court may issue a temporary restraining order “only if . . . specific facts in an affidavit or

verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result

to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

Here, Plaintiff has yet to file a complaint that survives initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2), and so he has certainly not presented a verified complaint satisfying the Rule

65(b)(1)(A) standard. Nor has he provided an affidavit providing specific facts showing that he

is at risk of immediate harm. Instead, Plaintiff seeks relief based upon nothing more than

speculation. The motion will be denied without prejudice, and the Court will entertain future

such motions, if appropriate, as this litigation progresses.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to commence this

action without prepaying fees or costs (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this

order, Plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $9.82. 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 Plaintiff?s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 5) is

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to be Removed From Transfer

List” (Doc. 8) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail 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 that

conforms to the instructions herein within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order.

Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this

case without prejudice and without further notice.

Dated this 12" day of September, 2022.

hes Ly ig

SARAH E. PITLYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE