Jones v. Missouri Probation and Parole

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

JAMIE LYWELLEN JONES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 1:25-CV-00005 NCC

)

MISSOURI PROBATION AND PAROLE, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of self-represented Plaintiff Jamie Lywellen

Jones, a civil detainee currently residing at the Metropolitan Psychiatric Center, for leave to

commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. ECF No. 6. Upon

consideration of the financial information provided with the application, the Court finds the

Plaintiff is unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff

will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Additionally, based upon a review of the

amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.

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 may be granted. An

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

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).

“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. Id. 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.” Id. 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

On December 9, 2024, self-represented Plaintiff Jamie Lywellen Jones filed this action on

a prisoner civil rights complaint form pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. In the caption,

Plaintiff named Missouri Probation and Parole as the Defendant. Id. at 1. In the section of the form

complaint designated to list any additional defendants, Plaintiff included Chris Hopper and Neil

2

Acott in their official capacities as employees of Missouri Probation and Parole. Id. at 2-3. The

statement of claim was as follows in its entirety:

Delay action start 6-29-2023 Probation ended the delay action 6-25-2024 Judge

Miller Judge Lipke one did arrest warr[a]nt one did a 10,000 cash bond. Now Jamie

Jones has 2 cases

Cape County Jail 6-25-24 7-01-24 7-16-24

Id. at 4 (errors in original).

Under the injuries section, Plaintiff wrote “Jamie Jones first case hasn’t been dispotion

[sic] or no plea to the charges.” Id. at 4. He seeks monetary damages and “probation completed

with prejudi[ce].” Id.

On January 15, 2025, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and determined it was

deficient as written because it failed to provide a short and plain statement of facts that supported

his claim against each named Defendant. ECF No. 4. Because of his self-represented status, the

Court directed him to amend his complaint within twenty-one days.

Additionally, the Court took judicial notice that Plaintiff was determined to be

incapacitated and incompetent to stand trial based on the written findings of the Missouri

Department of Mental Health. See State v. Jones, 23CG-CR00919 (32nd Jud. Cir., Cape Girardeau

County). He had also been placed under temporary guardianship by a Court-appointed guardian.

See In re the Estate of Jamie Jones, No. 24BA-PR00535 (13th Jud. Cir., Boone County). A hearing

for permanent guardianship was set for February 3, 2025.1 Consequently, the Court also directed

Plaintiff to show cause as to why he should not be required to have the permission of his Missouri

1 The Court notes that the hearing was subsequently rescheduled to April 7, 2024. Until such time, the Boone County

Public Administrator was appointed as Successor Temporary Guardian/Conservator. See In re the Estate of Jamie

Jones, No. 24BA-PR00535 (Emergency Order, dated March 17, 2025).

3

guardian to pursue this action and why this Court should not appoint either a guardian ad litem

and/or next friend, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.2

Amended Complaint

On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint against the same three

defendants: Missouri Probation and Parole, Chris Hopper, and Neil Acott. ECF No. 7. He indicates

he is suing Hopper in his official capacity only but is silent as to Acott.3 The statement of claim is

as follows in its entirety:

Jamie Jones is incompetent to proceed on 6-25-2024

Probation and Parole Pause for a Delay Action of Case No 23-CG-CR00919 6 29

2023 That case still pending

Id. at 4 (errors in original).

Plaintiff does not fill out the “Injuries” section of the form complaint. See id. at 4. For

relief, he seeks “one. Two million 120000000.” Id. at 5.

Discussion

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court has reviewed his amended

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review, and for the reasons discussed below, the

Court must dismiss this action without prejudice.

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits suits for damages

against the state, agencies of the state, or state officials acting in their official capacity. Nix v.

2 As of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s directive to Show Cause.

Therefore, in addition to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, this matter is being dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with a Court Order. See Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power

to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order).

3 Following the factors outlined in S.A.A. v. Geisler, 127 F.4th 1133, 1139 (8th Cir. 2025), the Court does not find that

the Complaint evidences Plaintiff’s intent to sue Defendant Acott in his individual capacity.

4

Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 432-33 (8th Cir. 1989). Because Plaintiff’s § 1983 Complaint for damages

is against the State of Missouri Department of Probation and Parole, a state agency, such suit is

barred by the Eleventh Amendment and should be dismissed.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars a § 1983 lawsuit against a state agency or state

official in their official capacity even if the entity is the moving force behind the deprivation of

the federal right. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169, 105 S. Ct. 3099, (1985); Larson v.

Kempker, 414 F.3d 936, 939 n. 3 (8th Cir. 2005). To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to argue

that the conduct of this state agency or its officials deprived him of his federal constitutional rights,

the agency and its officials nevertheless enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity in relation to

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. Plaintiff does not argue or otherwise demonstrate Defendants are

somehow exempt from this Eleventh Amendment bar. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99, (1984); Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 540 (8th Cir. 1988).

Indeed, as determined by the Supreme Court in Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, (1979), neither the

history nor the text of § 1983 expresses any congressional intent to overturn the constitutionally

guaranteed immunity of the states. Id. at 342-45. Thus, because Plaintiff’s Complaint against the

Missouri Department of Probation and Parole and its officials are barred by the Eleventh

Amendment, this action must be dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or legal frivolity.

And, even if Plaintiff intended to sue Defendants Acott and Hopper in their individual

capacities, his claims against them would fail. As discussed in the Court’s Memorandum and

Order, dated January 15, 2025, in order to state a claim for § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must allege

facts connecting the named defendants to the challenged action. See Bitzan v. Bartruff, 916 F.3d

716, 717 (8th Cir. 2019). Even self-represented plaintiffs are required to set out not only their

5

alleged claims in a simple, concise, and direct manner, but also the facts in support of such claims.

See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Here, Plaintiff has not done so. While this

Court must liberally construe self-represented filings, this Court will not construct claims or

assume facts that Plaintiff has not alleged. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 012, 914-15 (8th Cir.

2004) (refusing to supply additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the pro se plaintiff that

assumed facts that had not been pleaded). As such, this action is also dismissed for failure to state

a claim against the individual defendants.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF

No. 6) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to

issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally frivolous and/or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF

No. 5] is DENIED as moot.

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

separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED than an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in

good faith.

Dated this 27th day of March, 2025.

ot Fe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE