Harris v. State of Missouri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

DESMOND HARRIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:23-CV-1319-NCC

)

STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of self-represented plaintiff Desmond Harris,

a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated at the St. Louis City Justice Center, for leave to

commence this civil action without payment of the required filing fee. ECF No. 2. Having reviewed

the motion and the financial information submitted in support, the Court has determined plaintiff

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

$32.23. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will

allow plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint.

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 is

required to pay the full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in his or her

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

1

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.

In support of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff submitted a copy

of his inmate account statement. ECF No. 8. A review of plaintiff’s account indicates an average

monthly deposit of $161.17 and an average monthly balance of $18.49. Plaintiff has insufficient

funds to pay the entire filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of

$32.23, which is 20 percent of plaintiff’s average monthly deposit.

The Complaint

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on a Court-provided Prisoner Civil

Rights Complaint form. ECF No. 1. In the caption section, plaintiff lists the following entities as

defendants:

State of Missouri

22nd Judicial Circuit Court

City of St. Louis

Department of Public Safety

Division of Corrections

Id. at 1. However, in the section of the complaint for plaintiff to list all defendants, plaintiff only

includes the State of Missouri 22nd Judicial Circuit Court as a single defendant. See id. at 2.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a Statement of Claim, a description of his injuries, or the

relief he seeks.

Attached to the complaint are the following documents: (1) a handwritten form titled,

“Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death,” in which he states he has been subjected to “wrongful

2

incar[c]eration, false arrest, unlawful detainment, fraud, public humiliation, defamation of

character, [and] PTSD,” (2) a document titled, “NOTICE Petition for Redress of Gr[ie]vance:

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant Article I § 9 of the Missouri Constitution,” followed by two pages of

citations to the United States Constitution; (3) a copy of an Informal Resolution Request form

related to an August 22, 2023 incident in which inmates were allegedly placed into segregation

and deprived of “meals, showers and outside contact for 9 days,” and (4) two pages of notebook

paper in which plaintiff provides vague and conclusory allegations that detainees are subject to

cruel and unusual punishment. See ECF No. 1-4.

Legal Standard on Initial Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 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, 678 (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) (stating that a court must accept factual allegations in the complaint as true but

is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

3

When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,

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 self-represented complainants 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) (refusing to supply additional facts

or to construct a legal theory for the self-represented plaintiff that assumed facts that had not been

pleaded). In addition, affording a self-represented 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).

Discussion

Having thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the Court finds it is

subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim and legal frivolity.

First, the named defendants are not suable entities. The State of Missouri is not a “person”

under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63 (1989). Similarly,

Missouri courts are absolutely immune from liability. Id. See also Harris v. Missouri Court of

Appeals, Western Dist., 787 F.2d 427, 429 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781,

782 (1978)) (a Missouri court cannot be sued under § 1983 because it is protected by Eleventh

Amendment immunity). Additionally, “claims against the Corrections Division of the St. Louis

4

Department of Public Safety fail because that entity is a department or subdivision of City

government, not an entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Peyton v. City of St. Louis Dep’t

of Pub. Safety, Div. of Corr., No. 4:21-CV-631-SRC, 2021 WL 3662798, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug.

18, 2021) (citing Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992)). Finally,

the complaint contains no allegations of a policy or custom of unconstitutional action, as would be

required to state a claim against the City of St. Louis. See Monell v. Department of Social Services,

436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).

Second, plaintiff is advised that Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

governs pleading standards requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” (emphasis added). In order to conform to the requirements of Rule 8,

plaintiff’s complaint must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the

court’s jurisdiction depends, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a). Rule 8(e)(1) requires that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). Under federal “notice pleading” rules, a pleading need only be sufficient

to place the opposing party on notice of the possible claims. Smith v. St. Bernards Reg’l Med. Ctr.,

19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994). The complaint must be sufficiently clear so the Court or

opposing party “is not required to keep sifting through it in search of what it is plaintiff asserts.”

Id. (citing Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merch. Servs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775-76 (7th Cir. 1994)).

Although plaintiff is self-represented, he must still comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996);

American Inmate Paralegal Ass’n v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59, 61 (8th Cir. 1988).

5

Here, plaintiff’s complaint abjectly fails to meet the short and plain statement requirement

of Rule 8(a) as there is no Statement of Claim included within his filing, and he does not include

a demand for judgment for the relief he seeks. The unexplained documents attached to the

Complaint are not an appropriate substitute for a Statement of Claim. It is not the Court’s

responsibility to extract facts from the attachments to construe the elements for plaintiff’s claim(s).

Third, “[l]iability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the

alleged deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990). See also

Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 liability arises only upon a showing

of personal participation by defendant); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985)

(claim not cognizable under § 1983 where plaintiff fails to allege defendant was personally

involved in or directly responsible for incidents that injured plaintiff). In order to state an

actionable civil rights claim against each defendant, plaintiff must set forth specific factual

allegations showing what that particular defendant actually did, or failed to do, that violated the

plaintiff’s federally protected rights. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ellis v. Norris,

179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (a plaintiff must plead facts showing each named defendant’s

personal involvement in the alleged constitutional wrongdoing).

In the instant complaint, plaintiff does not name any individual defendants who may be

personally liable for his alleged claims. Additionally, the defendants appear only in the case

caption, and nowhere else. Simply placing a defendant’s name in the caption is not enough to assert

responsibility. See Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d 1151, 1153 (8th Cir. 1993) (agreeing with district court

dismissal of two defendants who were named as defendants in the complaint, but who had no

factual allegations made against them); Krych v. Hvass, 83 Fed. Appx. 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2003)

6

(agreeing with district court dismissal of defendants who were merely listed in the complaint, and

who were not alleged to have been personally involved in the constitutional violations).

In consideration of plaintiff’s self-represented status, the Court will allow him the

opportunity to submit an amended complaint.

Instructions on Amending the Complaint

Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint completely replaces the original

complaint so it must include all claims plaintiff wishes to bring. 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 supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal

effect”). Plaintiff must type or neatly print the amended complaint on the Court-provided 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 complaint form, 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”). All the defendants must be clearly listed. Plaintiff

should also indicate whether he intends to sue each defendant in his or her individual capacity,

official capacity, or both. Plaintiff should avoid naming anyone as a defendant unless that person

is directly related to his claim(s).

In the “Statement of Claim” section, plaintiff should begin by writing a defendant’s name.

In separate, numbered paragraphs under that name, plaintiff should: (1) set forth a short and plain

statement of the factual allegations supporting his claim against that specific defendant; and (2)

7

state what constitutional or federal statutory right(s) that defendant violated. Each averment must

be simple, concise, and direct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). If plaintiff is suing more than one

defendant, he should proceed in the same manner with each one, separately writing each individual

defendant’s name and, under that name, in numbered paragraphs, the factual allegations supporting

his claim or claims against that defendant. No introductory or conclusory paragraphs are necessary.

Plaintiff 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). Alternatively,

plaintiff may choose a single defendant, and set forth as many claims as he has against him or

her. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Plaintiff’s failure to make specific factual allegations against any

defendant will result in that defendant’s dismissal. 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 a defendant in an individual capacity, he is required to allege facts

demonstrating the personal responsibility of the defendant for harming him. Madewell, 909 F.2d

at 1208 (stating that § 1983 liability “requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the

deprivation of rights”). Plaintiff 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) (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 must not amend a complaint by filing separate documents. Instead, he must file a single,

comprehensive pleading that sets forth his claims for relief.

Plaintiff must also be careful to fill out the Court-provided complaint form in its entirety,

8

including the “Injuries” and “Relief” sections. There is no constitutional violation where an inmate

cannot show he suffered an injury or adverse health consequence. See Seltzer-Bey v. Delo, 66 F.3d

961, 964 (8th Cir. 1995). “Claims under the Eighth Amendment require a compensable injury to

be greater than de minimis.” Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008). “While a serious

injury is not necessary, some actual injury is required in order to state an Eighth Amendment

violation.” White v. Holmes, 21 F.3d 277, 281 (8th Cir. 1994).

If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided form within thirty (30)

days in accordance with the instructions set forth herein, the Court may dismiss this action without

prejudice and without further notice to plaintiff.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 3. In civil cases, a self-represented

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)

(stating that “[a] pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed

in a civil case”). 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 self-represented litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting

testimony, and the ability of the self-represented litigant to present his or her claim. Phillips v.

Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006).

9

After considering these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is

unwarranted at this time. Plaintiff has yet to file a complaint that survives initial review, so it

cannot be said that he has presented non-frivolous claims. Additionally, this case appears to

involve straightforward factual and legal issues, and there is no indication that plaintiff cannot

investigate the facts and present his claims to the Court.

The Court will therefore deny his motion without prejudice at this time. However, the Court

will entertain a future motion for appointment of counsel, if appropriate, as the case progresses.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF

No. 2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial filing fee of $32.23 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) that the remittance is for an original proceeding.

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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 3] is

DENIED without prejudice at this time.

10

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 15th day of December, 2023.

/s/ Noelle C. Collins

NOELLE C. COLLINS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11