Keys v. Fields Food Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

SIDNEY KEYS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-00797-SEP

)

FIELDS FOODS INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is the motion of self-represented Plaintiff Sidney Keys for leave to

commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee.1 Doc. [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 set forth below, this action is dismissed. See id. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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, or if it 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 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”).

1 The Court notes Plaintiff Sidney Keys has previously filed twenty-two (22) in forma pauperis civil

cases, all of which have been dismissed upon initial review for failure to state a claim, voluntarily

dismissed by Plaintiff, dismissed upon a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, or dismissed for failure to

comply with a Court order.

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 . . . 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)). But 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, 364 F.3d at 914-15 (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.” McNeil v. United

States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Fields Foods Inc. on the Court’s civil

complaint form. See Doc. [1]. Plaintiff asserts that on June 20, 2023, he was at Fields Foods

when he witnessed a St. Louis City police officer, who was working as a security guard for

Defendant, pepper spray an African American man who “appeared [] slight[ly] mentally

deranged.” Id. at 5. For relief, Plaintiff asks for a “federal investigation into the incident and

crime. . . against the innocent African American man.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Having carefully reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims must be

dismissed because he does not have standing to bring a lawsuit asserting the rights of another

individual.

Standing is a jurisdictional requirement that can be raised by the court sua sponte at any

time during litigation. Delorme v. U.S., 354 F.3d 810, 815 (8th Cir. 2004). A person must have

standing in order to bring a claim, and 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.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). Plaintiff, who is not an attorney,

cannot represent another person in federal court, nor can he bring claims on behalf of others. See

28 U.S.C. § 1654 (in all United States courts, “the parties may plead and conduct their own cases

personally or by counsel”); Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[B]ecause

pro se means to appear for one’s self, a person may not appear on another person’s behalf in the

other’s cause. A person must be litigating an interest personal to him.”); 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). Under Missouri law, a non-attorney

representing another person in court is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, which can

carry criminal penalties. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020.

Here, Plaintiff asserts he witnessed a Fields Food’s employee assault a third party.

Plaintiff appears to bring this action on behalf of the allegedly assaulted individual, as he does

not assert any personal injury. Plaintiff asks for a “federal investigation into the incident. . .

against the innocent African American man.” Because Plaintiff is not attempting to litigate an

interest personal to him, this action must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, Doc. [2], is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, Doc.

[3], is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in

good faith.

Dated this 6" day of July, 2023.

Fhiok Lex.

SARAH E. PITLYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE