Lyons Jr. v. St. Louis City Justice Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

EARNEST T. LYONS, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:23-cv-01572-JSD

)

ST. LOUIS CITY JUSTICE CENTER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the application of self-represented plaintiff Earnest T.

Lyons, Jr. for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. Having

reviewed the application and the financial information submitted in support, the Court finds

plaintiff lacks sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee, and will assess an initial partial filing

fee of $1. Furthermore, based on an initial review of the complaint, the Court will allow plaintiff

thirty days to file an amended complaint in accordance with the instructions set forth below.

Initial Partial Filing Fee

A prisoner bringing a civil action is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 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 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 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, until the filing fee is fully paid. Id.

Plaintiff has not submitted a certified account statement as required by § 1915(a)(2),

although he has asked his institution, the St. Louis City Justice Center, to provide him with one.

ECF No. 1-2 at 4. Nevertheless, having reviewed the information contained in the motion, the

Court will require plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00. See Henderson v. Norris,

129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that when a prisoner is unable to provide the court

with a certified copy of his inmate account statement, the court should assess an amount “that is

reasonable, based on whatever information the court has about the prisoner’s finances”). If plaintiff

is unable to pay the initial partial filing fee, he must submit a copy of his inmate account statement

in support of his claim.

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

-2-

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 § 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).

The Complaint

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the St. Louis City Justice

Center (“STLJC”); Jennifer Abdullah-Clemons, Commissioner, STLJC; and Tammy Ross, Deputy

Commissioner, STLJC, arising out of the conditions at the jail from February 16, 2023 to the

present. Plaintiff claims that he has been living under inhumane conditions.

Plaintiff states that for his housing unit of 80 inmates, only 4 showers work. As to the four

working showers, he states the STLJC does not provide proper cleaning products, and months go

by without the showers being cleaned. He states the showers contain feces, urine, semen, flies, and

mold.

Plaintiff states that officers spray prisoners daily with mace “for the smallest reasons like

asking to have your rights and needs met.” He states that the officers then leave the inmates who

have been maced inside their cells without medical attention for hours.

Inmates flood the housing unit regularly, likely in protest of the conditions. After an inmate

floods the unit, plaintiff states that the prison’s staff does not allow other inmates get the water out

-3-

of their cells. “Inmates had to wake up, eat and go to sleep for weeks with water in their cells and,

this water consisted of toilet water, urine and feces. When an inmate floods [the unit], [staff] turns

the unit water off for days at a time.”

Plaintiff states that inmates are not given enough food. He states they are served child-sized

portions. He claims inmates are losing weight and “[s]ome inmates have lost up to 40 pounds.

After the riot on August 22, 2023 the proportions got smaller[.] [T]he jail is punishing inmates by

starving us.”

He states that laundry that is supposed to come twice weekly, but comes only once a month.

Inmates compensate by washing clothes in their cells with hand soap, but they are only given two

bars of hotel-sized hand soap.

Because of the overcrowding, inmates are denied status privileges, and different status

inmates are housed in the same unit. Inmates in plaintiff’s unit, Unit 4-B, are allowed only one

ten-minute phone call per month, and inmates have to choose between calling their family or their

attorneys. Additionally, plaintiff states inmates have no physical recreation time, “they keep

inmates trapped in cell 24 hours a day without any physical recreation.”

Because of these jail conditions, plaintiff has been suffering psychologically. He feels

“completely cut off from the outside world. Having to face self-esteem issues from not being

groomed for over 10 months, and having bad body odor not being able to bathe for weeks at a

time. Pain and suffering living under inhumane conditions having to wake up eat and sleep in

infested water. Having to take showers in infested showers[,] living like an animal. Being in a

depressed state mentally[,] sleeping most of the day [due] to lack of nutrition and weight lost due

to small-sized proportion meal.”

-4-

For relief, plaintiff seeks an award of $8 million.

Discussion

Plaintiff sues defendants under § 1983 claiming that the living conditions at the STLJC are

so inhumane as to violate his Eighth Amendment rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.

In determining whether pretrial detention is unconstitutionally punitive, the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has applied the deliberate indifference standard. Owens v. Scott Cty.

Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003); see also Walton v. Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109, 1117 (8th

Cir. 2014). In particular, the Eighth Circuit has explained that this standard is applicable when “the

governmental duty to protect at issue…is not based on a pretrial detainee’s right to be free from

punishment but is grounded in principles of safety and well-being.” Butler v. Fletcher, 465 F.3d

340, 344 (8th Cir. 2006). To that end, the Eighth Circuit has held “that deliberate indifference is

the appropriate standard of culpability for all claims that prison officials failed to provide pretrial

detainees with adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety.” Id. at 345.

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal because he has not named the proper

defendants. As to the STLJC, plaintiff’s claims are legally frivolous because this entity cannot be

sued. Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or

subdivisions of local governments are “not juridical entities suable as such.”). Plaintiff has not

alleged that any policy or custom of the City of St. Louis was responsible for the alleged

constitutional violations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).

As to the individual defendants, plaintiff has not named the individuals directly responsible

for the prison conditions. He names only Jennifer Abdullah-Clemons, the Commissioner at STLJC,

and Tammy Ross, the Deputy Commissioner at STLJC. Plaintiff has listed neither women in the

-5-

body of the complaint, and has made no direct allegations against them. Presumably, Abdullah-

Clemons and Ross are employed in supervisory positions. It is settled “that a warden’s general

responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient to establish personal

involvement.” Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 981 (8th Cir. 2011). To establish liability under

§1983, plaintiff has to name as defendants those individuals directly responsible for the prison

condition he complains of, stating how that defendant was directly and personally involved.

Because plaintiff is proceeding as a self-represented litigant, and has presented serious

allegations to the Court, he will be allowed to amend his complaint according to the instructions

set forth below.

Instructions for Filing an Amended Complaint

The Court will provide plaintiff with another form Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. 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. The failure to sue a defendant in his or her individual capacity may

result in the dismissal of that defendant.

-6-

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”). 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”).

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

-7-

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

form within thirty days in accordance with these instructions, the Court will dismiss this action

without prejudice and without further notice to plaintiff.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. The motion will be denied at this

time. In civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed

counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013); see also Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d

538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if the court 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.”

Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018). When determining whether to appoint

counsel for an indigent litigant, a court considers relevant factors such as the complexity of the

case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony,

and the ability of the pro se litigant to present his or her claim. Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437

F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006).

After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not

warranted at this time. Plaintiff has demonstrated that he can adequately present his claims to the

Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be complex. The

Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff’s application to proceed in district court

without prepaying fees or costs is GRANTED. [ECF No. 2]

-8-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00

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 mail plaintiff a copy of the

Court’s form Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of

this Memorandum and Order to file an amended complaint in accordance with the instructions set

forth above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not file an amended complaint in

accordance with these instructions, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without

further notice to plaintiff.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel is

DENIED. [ECF No. 3]

Dated this 8th day of December, 2023.

Get

UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-9-